Henry Waxman

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join Representative Eshoo, Representative Bono Mack, Representative Upton, and Representative Walden as an original co-sponsor of this resolution. The Internet has been a unique and powerful driver of social and economic progress. A critical element of that success has been the open manner in which the Internet is governed. Rather than relying on centralized control by governments, the Internet instead adopts a multi-stakeholder model in which all who have an interest can have a voice in the Internet's operation. Lately, however, the multi-stakeholder model towards Internet governance has been under assault on the global stage. In a few months at the World Conference on International Telecommunications in Dubai in December, the International Telecommunication Union may consider proposals that could fundamentally alter the way the Internet operates. Some of these proposals, if adopted, would undermine the successful decentralized approach to Internet governance and impose a government- controlled management regime, thereby threatening citizens' access to content and information via the Internet as well as the global free flow of information online. We cannot allow this to happen. The Obama Administration has worked diligently to ensure that the Internet remains a tool for the global dissemination of ideas, information, and commerce. In doing so, the Administration continues the work of previous Administrations of both parties in protecting a global open Internet as a tool that benefits citizens around the world. In May, the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology held a hearing to examine proposals that would change the Internet governance model. At that hearing we heard from witnesses from the Administration and experts with a long history of working on issues relating to Internet governance. The witnesses all agreed that the United States must continue to resist any proposals that would undermine the multi- stakeholder model. Their testimony reinforced my belief that Democrats and Republicans in Congress must stand united with the Administration in its efforts to resist proposals that would undermine the existing multi-stakeholder approach. I am pleased that so many Democrats and Republicans have signed on as co-sponsors of this resolution. This large, bipartisan coalition of co-sponsors demonstrates that there is support across the political spectrum for continuing the multi-stakeholder model that allows the Internet to thrive. We urge the Administration to continue to resist international efforts to allow greater government control of the Internet, and I urge my colleagues to vote for this resolution.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, the Iranian nuclear threat is a daunting and dangerous challenge. With Iran stalling diplomatic talks, adding enrichment centrifuges, and continuing work at unmonitored enrichment sites, there is frustration and alarm that time may be running out. But time has not run out and if we are to avert a military confrontation with Iran over its nuclear weapons ambitions, we must make use of every opportunity to pressure Iran to change course. This bill achieves that goal with sanctions that are deeper and stronger than any we have ever seen. Without a doubt sanctions against Iran are having a powerful impact. In the last year alone, exports of Iranian oil have dropped by sixty percent. The value of Iran's currency has plummeted by more than one- third. Full tankers are idling in Iranian harbors unable to sell crude in the world market. Although Iran has attempted to work around the sanctions by reflagging vessels and hiding transactions, the shell game isn't sustainable. Sanctions announced by President Obama in recent days and weeks and those authorized in the bill before us today will tighten the grip. Our message to Iran is loud and clear--there is no escaping accountability. The consequences of defying the international community and continuing an illegal nuclear program are severe and they will be gravely worse if the Iranian government continues on its current course. This bill is our third round of congressional sanctions legislation since the Obama Administration successfully galvanized U.N. Security Council support for multilateral sanctions against the Iranian nuclear program in June 2010. Together with sanctions enacted in July 2010 and December 2011, the sanctions in the bill before us today reinforce the message to countries, companies and financial institutions that now is not the time for business as usual with Iran. The bill gives the Administration an array of new tools to shore up international resolve. It has sharp enforcement mechanisms to help enlist other countries in the effort to starve the Iranian nuclear program of cash flows from Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, the National Iranian Oil Company, the National Iranian Tanker Company, and other Iranian banks, businesses and government entities being used to funnel money into nuclear activities. The bill also expands sanctions against Iranian and Syrian officials responsible for human rights abuses by using electronic monitoring and tracking of regime opposition and specifically targets the paramilitary organizations that have been most insidious in terrorizing democracy activists. But what this bill does not do is authorize war with Iran. In fact, the bill explicitly says so. I want to underscore that point, because the motivation of the sanctions is to pressure Iranian leaders to abide by the International Atomic Energy Agency's demands and negotiate in good faith and to avoid a military escalation. As President Obama has stated clearly, the United States does not have a policy of containment. All options are the on the table if Iran does not change course. By passing this legislation we will continue to leave no stone unturned in our determination to try and achieve a diplomatic resolution to this crisis.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. I would like to make a few comments on the committee process for H.R. 4273. As introduced, I had substantial concerns about H.R. 4273. The introduced bill gave the Department of Energy unprecedented and unchecked new authority to waive any federal, state or local environmental law if DOE determines there is an emergency with respect to electric power, and the only references to environmental safeguards in the bill were hortatory. This approach was unacceptable. I also believed that the bill was unnecessary, as federal agencies already have the tools necessary to resolve any conflicts between environmental requirements and emergency orders. However, the bill's sponsors, the committee Chairman, and the affected industry were willing to engage in serious, substantive negotiations to improve the bill, which produced significant improvements. The version of the bill reported from Committee is narrower in scope and effect, and provides some environmental safeguards. I would like to extend my thanks to all of the participants in the negotiations for a good-faith and productive process. In particular, I would like to thank Mr. Doyle and Mr. Green for their leadership and hard work on making improvements and producing a bill that can be supported on a broad bipartisan basis. I also want to thank Chairman Upton and Subcommittee Chairman Whitfield and Representative Olson for working with us. The language of this bill represents a delicate compromise that was very carefully negotiated, and changes to the bill before us could well jeopardize that broad support. H.R. 4273, as it is before us today, requires any emergency order that may result in a conflict with environmental requirements to require generation only during the hours necessary to meet the emergency and to minimize any adverse environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable. The reported bill also limits the length of such an order to 90 days, and requires any renewed order to include any conditions identified by the relevant federal environmental agency as necessary to minimize any environmental impacts. In discussions and testimony on the bill, DOE officials informed the Committee that in any situation where time permits, they always consult with and rely on the relevant expert environmental agency with respect to minimizing environmental impacts of an emergency order, and they assured the Committee that they would continue this practice. This assurance is important to my support for the bill.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this bill. All year, the House Republicans have brought extreme bills to this floor to repeal commonsense safeguards. In fact, we have voted over 280 times this Congress to repeal or undermine landmark environmental laws like the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. That's not what the American people want. The legislation we are debating today takes this assault to a new level. It halts virtually all regulation until unemployment drops below 6 percent. I don't see it. We are going to have an unprecedented attack on critical public health, safety and economic protections? We are going to let the marketplace solve all problems? This bill would undermine Medicare by preventing the issuance of updated reimbursement rates and by denying hospitals and clinics hundreds of millions of dollars in Medicare payments--because these are regulations as well. It would jeopardize the food supply by blocking produce safety rules that would prevent contaminated food from showing up on our local grocery store shelves. It would stop broadly supported tailpipe rules for cars and trucks that will save consumers money, slash pollution, and cut our dependence on oil. It would block rules to ensure health care quality and raise the bar for provider performance. According to the Congressional Budget Office, this legislation could even delay incentive auctions of spectrum by the FCC. These auctions would raise billions of dollars to build out the public safety communications system. This is a clear example of how this bill will kill jobs, not create them, and increase, not reduce, the deficit. Madam Chair, a lot of regulations are important and a lot of regulations create jobs, but we hear over and over again, Oh, we can't burden the job creators with regulations. When we put regulations in place, it's for a reason. There is a reason that we ought to let the regulations go forward and not stop them all as this bill would do. The reasons are to protect public health and safety. The reasons are to have a Medicare system that is up to date. The reasons are to make sure that our financial institutions have rules that apply to them and that we don't let them make the decisions on their own. They may be job creators, but they were job destroyers in 2008. Republicans say they want to cut red tape, but this legislation does not cut red tape. It makes the rest of the government just like the House of Representatives--dysfunctional and unresponsive to the Nation's pressing problems. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. I urge the American people to watch carefully who votes for it.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. This bill, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, would take away health security and cause over 30 million people to lose health coverage over the next decade. That's more people than the entire population of New York and Ohio. Yet here we go again, wasting time that should be spent on improving the economy and putting people to work. Instead, we're rehashing the same old arguments. Americans deserve health security. What's in the bill? The law that the Republicans would seek to take off the books prevents people with preexisting conditions, like pregnant women, from being denied insurance or charged so much that they can't get coverage. The law says women should not pay higher premiums just because they are women. People should have an easy, transparent marketplace to shop for quality insurance, and the hardworking middle class should receive subsidies to help them afford it. People should not be worried about losing health coverage if they lose their job. People should be encouraged to get preventive health services and not be charged for it. Small businesses should be helped if they want to offer health insurance. America should no longer be a country with millions of people uninsured and unable to get health insurance. That's what the Republicans want us to go back to. They argue that they want to repeal and replace ObamaCare. What's their replacement, RomneyCare? They have no replacement. They offer nothing to the American people. There is no proposal on how they would keep these 30 million people insured and end insurance company abuses like preexisting condition discrimination. Let's move beyond this vote and show the American people this institution is about more than just politics. It's about doing what's right for American families. Let's affirm our commitment to bring health security to all Americans. Let us reject this Republican bill that would again have the House go on record repealing the law, which has not yet been fully put into place. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent, before I reserve whatever time I have, to empower our Health Subcommittee ranking member, Mr. Frank Pallone from the State of New Jersey, to be able to control the rest of the time for the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. WAXMAN. In the previous amendment, we discussed title II, the Gasoline Regulations Act, which creates a new government committee to do the impossible: conduct an analysis of EPA air quality rules that have not yet even been proposed, using data that does not exist. The interagency committee cannot possibly provide a credible assessment of the potential impact of these potential rules on energy prices. It would simply require too much guesswork. Moreover, the Energy Information Administration told our committee staff that it does not have the capability to conduct much of the analysis required by this title. The agency would have to devote significant new staff and contractor time to complete the analysis. The CBO estimates that the Gasoline Regulations Act would cost $3 million to implement. That's $3 million to produce a report that will not be reliable, credible, or valuable to anyone. Mr. McKinley's amendment would make this report even less credible by significantly expanding its scope. His amendment would require that this new interagency committee examine ``any other matters affecting the growth, stability, and sustainability of the Nation's oil and gas industries, particularly relative to that of other nations.'' This language suggests that the new committee will have to take into account events and regulations in other countries as well as our own. Now, that's certainly going to send the price tag well above $3 million. For example, will the new interagency committee have to examine Nigerian labor law? What about oil company business practices in the Amazon or the concerns of indigenous communities in Canada's tar sands? Will the committee have to take into account the health of Hugo Chavez and the potential impact on Venezuelan oil prices? Political upheaval in the Middle East has a profound impact on the oil market. Will the new committee have to delve into that? If the interagency committee were serious about examining ``any other matters'' affecting the stability and sustainability, then it would have to look at a whole Pandora's box of issues here in the United States. For example, shouldn't the committee have to examine what Congress is doing to give coal a competitive advantage over natural gas by weakening air pollution laws and blocking action on climate change? The CEO of Chesapeake Energy has been in the news lately for some questionable business decisions that have helped put the country's second-largest natural gas company on the brink of bankruptcy. Certainly, the new interagency committee would have to examine that issue as part of this inquiry into matters relevant to the sustainability of the oil and gas industry. All of this is to say that Mr. McKinley's amendment is extremely broad and that it would make a deeply flawed report even less reliable and credible, if that's even possible. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. Today, the House considers a bill that represents a significant bipartisan and bicameral achievement. On May 30 of this year, the House passed its user fee legislation by a dramatic vote of 387 5. That bill was a strong one, but through our collaborative process with the Senate, we have made it even better. It has been a pleasure to work not only with Mr. Upton, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Pallone, and Mr. Dingell, among many involved House colleagues, but also with our Senate colleagues, Senators Harkin and Enzi. When we began this process, there were divergent views on the various issues contained in this bill. But we worked together and found ways to bridge our differences in a fashion that protects patients and fosters innovation. This legislation contains many provisions that are critical to the functioning of major parts of the FDA. We reauthorize the FDA's drug and medical device user fee programs which will provide resources to enable the efficient review of applications and give patients rapid access to new therapies. We're also reauthorizing two pediatric programs which foster the development and safe use of prescription drugs in children. This year, we're establishing two new programs to help the FDA speed up their review of new generics and biosimilars. These provisions illustrate our bipartisan commitment to ensuring a vibrant generic marketplace. All of us will see the benefits when more low-cost generics are on the market. One of the most important improvements to the House-passed bill is in the area of antibiotics. We accepted the Senate language that directs incentives for the development of antibiotics toward serious and life- threatening infections. This bill also includes provisions to modernize FDA's authorities with respect to the drug supply chain. Today, 80 percent of active ingredients and bulk chemicals used in U.S. drugs come from abroad and 40 percent of finished drugs are manufactured abroad. FDA has been trying to keep pace with this increasingly globalized drug supply change using an outdated statute. This legislation will give the FDA critical new tools to police this dramatically different marketplace. We have also worked to address the area of drug shortages, which is a complex and multifaceted problem, but this legislation takes some sensible first steps. I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and their staffs for the hard work they've put into making this a strong bipartisan bill. I particularly want to thank Mr. Pallone and Mr. Dingell's staff members, Tiffany Guarascio and Kim Trzeciak, as well as Mr. Upton and Mr. Pitt's staff, Ryan Long and Clay Alspach.

Mr. WAXMAN. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds. Warren Burke and Megan Renfrew have done tremendous work on this bill. I'd like to express my appreciation for their efforts. I want to thank my own staff: Karen Nelson, Rachel Sher, Eric Flamm, and Arun Patel. The American public will benefit from the provisions of this bill. The FDA will have the resources to remain the gold standard for the future. This is an important bill, a good one. I urge its support. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I'd like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), the ranking member of the Health Subcommittee, the subcommittee that was responsible for this legislation in its first instance. I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Pallone be permitted to manage the rest of the time on our side of the aisle.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. Reauthorizing the surface transportation programs is important for communities across the country. It will help revitalize our transportation infrastructure and will create jobs. The Transportation Conference Committee must work together to finalize a conference report as soon as possible to get people back to work. The Senate worked in a bipartisan manner to develop a strong bill that will create jobs and help the economy. They focused on the core issues, ignoring the temptation to attach side issues to this important legislation. Unfortunately, the transportation bill is now being jeopardized by extraneous and antienvironmental provisions being pushed by Republicans in the House. Instead of working to come to agreement on important transportation policy provisions, House Republicans are holding the bill hostage for a legislative earmark for the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, provisions that steamroll environmental review of projects, and the McKinley coal ash bill that eliminates existing authority to protect human health and the environment from the risks posed by unsafe disposal of coal ash. This motion to instruct is the latest effort to push these positions. It would instruct the transportation conferees to insist on the McKinley coal ash bill in the transportation bill. But the McKinley coal ash proposal is extraneous. If we do nothing on the transportation bill to address coal ash disposal, then coal ash will continue to be available for use in concrete for transportation projects just as it is today. Current Federal regulations do not restrict the use of coal ash in concrete. And counter to what you may hear today, EPA has not proposed to regulate such beneficial reuses. Although some may suggest that recycling of coal ash will decrease because of stigma, experience has shown that when waste materials are regulated, as EPA has proposed to do for coal ash, the rates of recycling and reuse increase. This has happened with other regulated wastes, and it has happened with coal ash in Wisconsin, which has a robust regulatory scheme. There's a very simple reason for this: Disposal in unsafe pits is inexpensive but environmentally dangerous. When reasonable environmental safeguards are put in place, the cost of disposal will increase. That makes alternatives like using coal ash in concrete more attractive. The coal ash legislation that this motion seeks to include will not ensure the safe disposal of coal ash. It will not prevent coal ash impoundments from catastrophically failing. It will not protect against significant environmental and economic damage. And it will not prevent contamination of public drinking water systems. The McKinley coal ash bill will not stop another spill like we saw in Kingston, air pollution like we have seen in Gambrills, Maryland, or water pollution like we have seen nationwide. What this coal ash proposal will do is stop the transportation conference from succeeding. This motion to instruct attempts to lock the House conferees into a position that the Senate will only reject, and it will doom the transportation conference committee to failure. We can retreat to intractable positions on extraneous issues, making a transportation bill difficult, if not impossible, to pass, particularly in the time frame that we have set out for us; or, we can work together in the time we have to produce a transportation bill that will be signed by the President and will keep our economy on the mend. A vote for this motion is a vote against completing the transportation conference. I urge all Members to say ``yes'' to transportation and vote ``no'' on this position motion. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush), the ranking member of the Energy Subcommittee.

Mr. WAXMAN. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. The way I understand the argument on the other side is that, if the EPA regulates coal ash and calls it hazardous, that stigma will lead construction companies to avoid it as a building material. If I could address the gentleman from West Virginia, Mr. McKinley. Is that an accurate statement, that you're fearful of the designation and the stigma of that designation as hazardous? I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased at this time to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I now have the pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley).

Mr. WAXMAN. Is your fear that, if the EPA regulates coal ash and it's called hazardous, that that designation will be a stigma and will lead to the nonuse of coal ash by construction companies as a building material?

Mr. WAXMAN. That is your fear?

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin). (Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WAXMAN. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. My colleagues, the thing that is so confusing to me is that coal ash is often used as a substitute for Portland cement in concrete to lower the costs; it reduces the waste, reduces the greenhouse gas emissions, and we don't need to pass legislation to have that happen. But I want to point out that Portland cement is designated as hazardous. It's a hazardous chemical under the OSHA Hazard Communications rule. It's a hazardous substance under the Superfund amendments. It's a hazardous substance under Federal Hazardous Substances Act, and it's a hazardous material under the Canadian Hazardous Products Act. But Portland cement continues to be used extensively in concrete and transportation projects. The EPA is not seeking to call coal ash ``hazardous.'' They want to call it a ``special waste.'' But even if they called it hazardous, why would it not be used the way Portland cement is now used, even though that substance is designated as hazardous in all these other statutes?

Mr. WAXMAN. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.

Mr. WAXMAN. Reclaiming my time, I yield myself 1 additional minute. The reason I ask for more time is, as I understand the McKinley bill, which was adopted by the House, it would prohibit EPA from regulating coal ash because it would be designated possibly as hazardous. And the argument has been that that would be a problem when it is to be used as a substance for concrete and building materials. But I don't believe that to be the case. Now I think that the committee, with the Senate and the House, ought to complete its business. But I don't think your amendment is needed under any circumstances. That is why I urge Members to vote against this instruction because it is trying to interject in that highway bill something that's really not part of the highway bill and something that, on its own, should not be adopted in the form of the McKinley bill. I reserve the balance of my time.