Henry Waxman

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, the administration and I would like to work out a bill with the Republicans, but this bill has two problems. After all is said and done, there is no requirement that they protect public health and the environment. There's all sorts of language that says we want them to. But if the States don't do that, the second problem is there's no enforcement; there's nothing to make them do it. Now, if you have no real clear standard to protect public health and no enforcement to make sure public health is being protected, that's a bill that's asking for continuation of pollution of our groundwater supplies. We can work together and get a bill, but this administration has said it does not adequately protect public health and the environment; it doesn't address the real problems. Even some of the changes that they have made have made this bill worse. It is a bill that we should reject and then go back to the negotiating table. Mr. Chairman, at this point, I wish to yield 5 minutes to the ranking member of the subcommittee on the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush).

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

Mr. WAXMAN. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, if coal ash is reused, it is not a hazardous waste. If it is stored and leaks into our groundwater or into our drinking water, it can be very hazardous. The problem with the Republican bill is that it doesn't clearly state that public health must be protected, and when they state it, there is no clear enforcement. The EPA cannot be sure that the job is being done, and even citizens cannot file lawsuits to require it to be done. This is a special interest bill that does not serve the interests of the American people. I now yield 5 minutes to the gentleman who is the ranking member of one of our energy subcommittees, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is left on both sides.

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

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to a very distinguished member of our committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, before I yield back my time, I want to point out to my colleagues that this bill will not make it into law. The Senate will not accept it, and the President will not support it in its present form because it doesn't protect public health. Coal ash contains arsenic, barium, cadmium, lead, mercury, hexavalent chromium, and other toxic materials. It's a threat, not when the coal ash is used for other purposes, but when it's in a disposal site and leaks into our drinking water, and that's what this issue is all about. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. When coal ash is recycled, it is not a waste; and, therefore, EPA has no jurisdiction. It is not a problem. When coal ash is put into a landfill or disposal site and leaches into the water, then it is a problem. This bill doesn't address that problem. It doesn't adequately ensure protection of the public health; or if they have a law at the State level that seems to talk about public health, there's no clear enforcement of it. That is our problem with the legislation. Recycling coal ash for any purpose doesn't make it hazardous, doesn't make it toxic. It can be reused, and we want to encourage that. But we don't want public health threatened. That's what our concern is all about. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Knowing that we want to wrap up this general debate, I yield myself the balance of my time. I will just repeat that the EPA proposed to act, and that is what has caused this whole furor. Rather than to discuss what is the appropriate balance between the EPA and the States, the Republican bill would take this away from EPA, keep them from regulating, and turn it over to the States, where the States can already act and many have. They don't need us to give them the power to act. This bill says it's up to the States. It doesn't have a uniform standard of protecting public health. It doesn't require States to have the goal of protecting the public health. And if the States achieve the goal in their legislation to protect public health, there's no guarantee of it being enforced because EPA cannot come back in and enforce the State law and citizens cannot file lawsuits. That's one of the so-called ``improvements'' that has been made since the last time this bill was before us. It has weakened the ability to enforce protection of public health. So I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, and in doing so tell us to go back and work on the problem and get a real, true bipartisan bill that can be supported by the majority of the Democrats and by the President of the United States. I urge Members to vote against the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I support your amendment and urge all of our colleagues to support it as well.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, under all of our environmental laws, the Federal Government sets a standard, and then the States implement the law looking at the different circumstances in their community. For example, the Clean Air Act says, in effect, everywhere in this country, we cannot have air pollution that exceeds the standard to protect the public health, but the States decide the implementation to achieve that standard. Under this bill, we're not setting a national standard. We're telling the States to set a standard. If we're going to let the States set the standard, my amendment would require that the standard in every State be to protect the public health, to protect human health and the environment. That's the goal of these laws, and that should be the requirement under this law. The standards are the yardsticks under which we determine whether a State's effort measures up and ensures a consistent level of protection throughout the Nation. If we're not going to have a national standard by EPA, let's require the State to set that standard. This is an approach that has worked well because it ensures that all Americans enjoy a minimum level of protection and residents of one State are not threatened by inadequate laws in a neighboring State. For example, if one State has a good, strong law to protect the public health, another State, trying to get the business away from that State to locate in theirs, will drop their standards lower to try to entice that business to relocate. The laxest protection becomes the dumping ground for the neighboring States. We don't want to put States in a race to the bottom. When Congress passed the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, we assigned EPA a simple mission: to protect human health and the environment from unsafe disposal of solid waste. Achieving that mission can be complex, but we have a clear goal. It provides direction for the Agency's technical work. But the bill we are considering today doesn't contain this standard. Disposal of household garbage, for example, must be disposed of in a way that protects human health. But under this bill, coal ash would not be required to be disposed of in a way that protects human health. My amendment would fix this serious problem by calling on the States to require measures necessary to protect human health and the environment. If we had the Republicans willing to accept the amendment that every State have an emergency plan, we're simply asking that every State have a goal, clearly stated, to achieve the protection of human health and the environment, otherwise a State's plan is not adequate; there would be no recourse as long as a State meets all of the other requirements of this law but still does not get to the goal. The Congressional Research Service examined this legislation, and they told us that nothing in H.R. 2218 requires the States to establish programs that will achieve any specified level of Federal standard or protection. CRS concluded: The degree to which a State program may protect human health from risks specific to coal ash disposal would not be known until individual States begin to interpret the bill. That means the one thing we know for sure is that this bill will take EPA off the beat--take the EPA off the beat, like we took the SEC and other regulators off the beat, where Wall Street took huge risks and drove our economy over the cliff. It'll take EPA off the beat, and then we'll gamble on each State government doing a good job. That's a pretty risky gamble. And if it doesn't pay off, who's going to suffer? Well, the price will be borne by communities in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Alabama and elsewhere whose water supplies will suffer from toxic contamination. Members from some of those States come in here and argue we need those jobs. Well, of course we need the jobs, and we're going to keep those jobs. But why shouldn't we, in keeping jobs, have waste disposals be constructed in a way that will not pollute our drinking water and harm human health? So I would urge that we set this standard in the bill and adopt this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, the Affordable Care Act is the law of the land. The Republicans never liked it. They didn't want to support it, and they did everything they could to try to stop it. They thought the courts would throw it out; the U.S. Supreme Court upheld it. They thought President Obama would be defeated; President Obama was reelected. This is the law of the land, and it's important to implement it. Even my Republican colleagues don't know or are willfully ignoring the benefits this law provides to their constituents. I want to tell them and anybody watching this debate that, if they would go to the Web site for the Democrats on the Energy and Commerce Committee, which is democrats. energycommerce.house.gov, we have a district-by-district impact of the law. I urge my colleagues to actually take a look at the benefits they are so eager to take away from their constituents. What are these benefits? People will not be denied health insurance because of preexisting conditions. The insurance companies will not be able to put in lifetime caps or go in and try to take away the insurance when they get sick. All of the abuses by the insurance companies will be stopped, and then people will be able to buy insurance in a marketplace where they can choose between different private insurance plans. And if some are low income, they'll get some help, but everybody is going to see an opportunity they've never had before because every insurance plan will have a minimum benefit package. Mr. Speaker, 7,500 adults in my district are already getting insurance by being able to stay on their parents' plan up to age 26; 12,000 seniors in my district alone are getting prescription drug discounts under Medicare, and there are millions around the country that will benefit from that. People, whether they're on Medicare, Medi- Cal, Medicaid or private insurance will not be asked to make copayments for prevention. Preventive care will be emphasized so we can try to prevent diseases rather than have to pay to have people treated. People will get money back if their insurance companies are spending no more than 20 percent on their overhead. We have had private insurance companies spending 30 and 40 percent on their salaries for their executives and less on the actual benefits. Every insurance plan will have to provide 80 percent of the premiums to go for the insurance coverage for health care services. This is an important bill. Now, if you take away the individual requirement to get insurance, the people that are going to get insurance for sure are the people who are already sick. If you don't have full participation, you can't spread the costs out to make it all affordable. Republicans would like to take away the requirement that everybody get insurance so that they can have a failure of the law because people with preexisting positions will be put into their own category, and the insurance will be too much for them to afford. They're trying to undermine the whole law. The President does not need legal authority to put off for a year the requirement that employers of 50 employees or more cover their employees or pay into the system. Most of those employers already cover their employees; 95 percent of those employers already cover their employees, and we hope to give tax breaks to others so they will join in and be able to cover their employees. This is a bill that's going to benefit all Americans. Republicans opposed Medicare; they're opposed to ObamaCare. They don't want people to get fair treatment for their health insurance. Vote ``no'' on both bills today.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me today to honor the distinguished career of Bob Trimborn, who retired on July 1 after seventeen years as Director of the Santa Monica Airport. Over the years, Bob has been a critically important advocate for airport neighbors and airport users and he will be greatly missed. Bob discovered his love of aviation early in life. He got his first real taste of flying at the Hawthorne Municipal Airport, where he flew his first plane at the age of fourteen. He later became a private pilot, a commercial pilot and in 1983 was hired as the Airport Manager in Hawthorne, where he worked for 10 years. He spent three years in Reno, Nevada serving as the Airport Manager at the Reno Stead Airport before the City of Santa Monica hired him as Airport Director for SMO in 1996. Bob took real pride in telling the story of the rich history of the airport and delighted in sharing a photo presentation about the evolution of SMO. The airport opened in 1917, gave flight to aviation adventurers like Amelia Earhart and Bessie Coleman, and was once home to Douglass Aircraft, which produced the celebrated DC-3. But Bob's lasting legacy will be his impassioned advocacy, which made a real difference in the lives of airport neighbors and users. He worked tirelessly with elected officials, the commissioners, and the surrounding community to promote transparency and seek solutions to the challenges facing the airport. I congratulate Bob on his many years of service to the City of Santa Monica and wish him all the best in his retirement.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I rise today on behalf of the Safe Climate Caucus to continue our effort to end the conspiracy of silence in this body surrounding the issue of our time: the growing threat posed by climate change. We have a moral obligation to be responsible stewards of the environment for our children and future generations. History will not judge the House of Representatives kindly if we continue to ignore the mounting danger and act like the last refuge of the Flat Earth Society. Yet that is what we are doing. The Republican strategy amounts to a conspiracy of silence. Despite our repeated requests for hearings and debate, the Republican majority refuses to hold hearings, continues to deny the science, and passes legislation that recklessly endangers our atmosphere. In the last Congress, the Republican-led House voted 53 times to block any action on climate change. The Energy and Water Appropriations bill on the floor this week guts funding for research and development for energy efficiency and renewable energy. It is still not too late to stop the rising CO2 levels in our atmosphere. The United Sates can still be the world leader in the clean energy technologies of the future. But we must act now.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. My colleagues, on behalf of the Safe Climate Caucus, I want to commend the President for his Climate Action Plan he announced on June 25. As the President recognized, we have a moral obligation to our children and our grandchildren to protect this planet for future generations. The history of the Clean Air Act shows that we can have both a clean environment and a strong economy. Since its adoption in 1970, the Clean Air Act has reduced air pollution by two-thirds while our economy has tripled in size. In 2010 alone, the Clean Air Act prevented over 160,000 premature deaths and millions of respiratory illnesses. The Clean Air Act has also made the U.S. a world leader in clean energy technology. In 2008, the U.S. pollution control industry generated $300 billion in revenues, $44 billion in exports, and over 1.5 million jobs. This time will be no different. In fact, a new study shows the President's plan could create hundreds of thousands of jobs.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker. During rollcall vote No. 291 on Grayson Amendment, H.R. 1613, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, today I rise to commemorate the lives lost in the tragic shooting rampage on the streets of Santa Monica and at Santa Monica College. On June 7, Samir Zawahri, Chris Zawahri, Marcela Franco, Carlos Navarro Franco, and Margarita Gomez lost their lives. We take a moment to honor them, and make a promise that we will remember them. I want to express my condolences to the victims' families. Your losses are Los Angeles' losses, and we grieve with you. There were many wounded, and we send our best wishes for a full and speedy recovery. I also rise to commend the heroic actions of our first responders. Without their fearless response, many more lives could have been lost. We thank these first responders who arrived on the scene and bravely protected us all. Our Nation expresses its gratitude. We are losing too many of our fellow citizens to gun violence. We must stop this cycle. My colleagues in Congress must come together to enact commonsense reforms, including comprehensive background checks. We must address the mental health needs of our community. We cannot allow the tragedy that occurred in Santa Monica to be repeated. The lives lost in Santa Monica cannot just be another statistic. They must inspire us to make our community and our Nation safer and more secure for everyone.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, today the Speaker of the House, not the presiding officer at the moment, but the Speaker of the House, John Boehner, made some irresponsible remarks about climate change. He was asked about the reports that the President is prepared to act to protect the planet and future generations from climate change impacts. And here's what the Speaker had to say: I think this is absolutely crazy. Why would you want to increase the cost of energy and kill more American jobs at a time when the American people are still asking, where are the jobs? Clear enough. Well, I could not disagree more strongly with Speaker Boehner. Presidential action to protect the climate and future generations is absolutely essential. The House is controlled by leaders who deny the science and are recklessly ignoring the risks of a rapidly changing climate. The House has become the last refuge of the Flat Earth Society. That is why the President must act, using his existing authorities under the law. The Speaker's assertion that acting to reduce emissions will hurt the economy is absolutely wrong. We need to act to lead the world in the clean energy economy of the future. If we don't act, initiative, leadership, and economic growth will go to countries that do. Now, I've been in Congress for over three decades. I worked on the Clean Air Act reauthorization of 1990. I remember the testimony we received in the 1980s about how, if we tried to do more in the environmental area, we would lose our jobs and our economy would be set back. We would face another depression. Well, on a bipartisan basis, we adopted the Clean Air Act. We had the bill sponsored and signed by President George H.W. Bush, and that legislation led to accomplishments of reducing air pollution in some of our heavily polluted urban areas, including my own home of Los Angeles. We were able to stop the ravages of acid rain, which were causing destruction of our forests and rivers and ponds in the Northeast and in Canada. We were able to do something about toxic pollution, which was causing birth defects and cancer in large numbers of people who lived near industrial facilities. And we were able to get legislation passed and moved forward to stop the destruction of the upper ozone of our planet. We accomplished these goals because we didn't pay attention to the naysayers who told us our economy would be ruined, we would lose jobs, we should forget about a healthy environment, we should forget about pristine air in our national parks. Luckily, we had leadership, from Republicans and Democrats, to do something, and we can now talk about the great accomplishments that we achieved. And at the same time, we created more jobs. We created more industries. We created new technological developments. But let me talk about why the President needs to act on this question of climate change. On Monday, the International Energy Agency, IEA, released a report concluding that the world is not on track to meet the goal of limiting global average temperatures below 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, or 2 degrees Celsius. Now, that is a tremendous concern because the scientists are telling us that if we don't achieve the goal of reducing the temperature rise, we are going to see some very severe impacts: flooding of our coastal cities, increased risk to our food supply, unprecedented heat waves, exacerbated water scarcity in many regions, increased frequency of high-intensity tropical cyclones, irreversible loss of biodiversity, including coral reefs. Recognizing this danger, our country and other countries around the world joined together in 2010 and said that we've got to do what we can to keep the temperature rise below 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit. The IEA concluded that the world is failing to meet this goal. Greenhouse gas emissions are driving climate change, and it's happening with increasing rapidity. So can we just deny this is happening? Can we say, oh, it will cost jobs and we shouldn't pay any attention to it? On our committee, the Energy and Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over this whole question, the Democratic leaders on the committee have asked that we have hearings to bring in the scientists because some of our Republican members have said they don't believe in the science. We sent over 36 letters asking that the scientists be brought before the committee to tell us why they think these terrible things may happen, and we have never gotten a response from a single letter of request for hearings. Can you imagine the people running the Congress denying the scientists and then refusing to hear from the scientists or claiming the science is uncertain and not resolved and then refusing to hear from scientists who can come in and talk about what they have learned? Now, if we're facing a world where all the accumulated greenhouse gases stay in that atmosphere and to the point where our planet is heating up and we're facing terrible consequences, you don't have to buy everything they say, but what are the chances that they're right? Ten percent? Would we take the risk that we're going to face a 10 percent chance of all these catastrophic consequences and do nothing about it? Well, that seems to be what the Republican leaders are saying, including the primary leader of the House, the Speaker. Now, let's look at some other more recent examples. When the President announced historic fuel economy standards, critics said cars would get smaller and more expensive, and it would hurt the sales of our automobiles. Well, they were completely wrong. Vehicle sales are booming. They are at high levels now. Consumers are saving money because cars are more fuel efficient. This is an accomplishment--an accomplishment--despite all the naysayers. When the Obama administration issued mercury standards for power plants and other sources, House Republicans said it would cost jobs and raise electricity prices. Well, that hasn't happened. Implementation has gone smoothly, and electricity prices have not gone up. In fact, wholesale prices actually went down, and there have been no rolling blackouts as predicted by the doomsday scenarios. In 2011, the EPA issued a report on the benefits of the Clean Air Act over the period from 1990 to 2020. According to the study, the direct benefits of the Clean Air Act in the form of cleaner air and a healthier population, more productive Americans, are estimated to reach nearly $2 trillion in the year 2020. We're talking about saving money by protecting our environment. So when the Speaker says that we shouldn't pay attention and that it's crazy to pay attention to the concerns about climate change, he's absolutely wrong. When he says action to reduce carbon emissions would harm the economy, just the opposite will happen. We will create new clean energy businesses and more economic growth. The President has said that if Congress won't act, he must act; and he is absolutely right. The President must act, and he has the authority to act under existing laws. Congress will not act because the leadership of the House of Representatives denies reality. They want to politicize science. They want to politicize science by ignoring it. Well, science is not another political opinion. Science is looking at the evidence. Turn on the television news any day of the week, and you will hear stories about droughts, superstorms, new hurricanes, new climate events, and new record levels of temperatures. Don't we think that something might be happening and that we have some responsibility in government to try to do something about this issue? Addressing climate change will require actions over the long term, but the IEA report highlights four policies that can be implemented now and through 2020 at no economic cost, policies that will help reduce local air pollution and increase energy security. First, that report recommended that countries adopt specific energy- efficiency measures. We don't have to build new power plants if we use our energy resources more efficiently. We can have more efficient heating and cooling systems in residential and commercial buildings, more efficient appliances and lighting in residential and commercial buildings. Energy-efficiency measures can account for half of the emissions reductions that the report proposes through the year 2020. Secondly, the report said that if countries limit the construction and use of inefficient subcritical coal-fired power plants and switch instead to cleaner and more efficient plants, we will see the air get cleaner and the threat from climate change be dramatically reduced. Thirdly, the report recommended that countries reduce emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas from upstream oil and gas production, by installing readily available technologies in the short term and pursuing additional long-term reduction strategies. And, fourth, the report proposed that countries accelerate the phase- out of fossil fuel subsidies which exacerbate climate change by encouraging consumption of carbon pollution emitting energy. Why are we subsidizing the oil companies with special tax breaks? Is a tax break for an oil company any different from appropriations of dollars for the oil companies? They're doing very well on their own. What we need to do is to provide a level playing field for competition for renewable fuels, alternatives and efficiency. These are the things that we ought to be focusing on rather than keeping oil and coal the predominant sources of our energy for electricity and fueling our motor vehicles. Things are changing. They're changing because investors don't want to buy into stranded investments because they know climate change is happening. The American people are getting a clear sense that something is happening in the climate, but they don't hear Congress even talking about it. And around the world, others are moving forward. Why should we allow others, whether it's the Chinese or the Europeans, to develop the technologies? We have always been the leader in developing technologies for the future. We developed the catalytic converter to control pollution from automobiles. We invented the scrubbers that could be used on power plants to reduce the emissions that come from these power plants. We have made all these advances over the years because we've given a clear incentive for anti-pollution control devices because we wanted to reduce pollution, and now we have a Congress where they want to deny at the highest levels of leadership in this Congress that climate change exists and the President shouldn't take any action. Imagine the top leader of the House of Representatives saying: I think it's absolutely crazy. Why would you want to increase the cost of energy and kill more American jobs at a time when the American people are still asking, where are the jobs? Well, the jobs can come along with efforts to reduce pollution. We have always seen the economy and our protection of the environment go hand in hand. We shouldn't say that we have to choose. We can have both. We have a long history in this country of bipartisan support for the proposition and the reality that we can preserve the environment and protect our economy and prosper, if we are willing to adopt policies and show some leadership. Mr. Speaker, I remember when the compliance costs were being thought of, when we were trying to deal with the acid rain problem. Industry after industry on the record--and it's all available to review--claimed the costs would be enormous. Then when we passed the law, the actual costs were a small fraction of what was being predicted. When they were told that they had to accomplish the goal under a cap-and-trade program to reduce sulfur emissions that were causing acid rain, we accomplished the goal at a fraction of the original estimates--which I think were highly inflated for scare purposes--but we accomplished the goal because we said this is the goal, accomplish that goal. You can benefit from new technologies and new ways to accomplish our environmental objectives. And that's exactly what we did, we moved out with the acid rain pollution problem. So my colleagues and Mr. Speaker, let's not have leaders who say we have to say that we're going to ignore the threat from climate change in order to protect jobs. We can protect and promote jobs and protect our environment at the same time. And Mr. President, you were so right when you said if the Congress will not act, you must act, you must lead. We are looking to the President to show that leadership because we're not going to get it from this House of Representatives. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. I support this amendment. We've seen natural disasters from droughts to heat waves to floods affecting farmers from coast to coast because of the climate change issue. We spend billions of dollars on crop insurance subsidies to cover the cost of these climate disasters. This amendment expands and improves the USDA Environmental Quality Incentives Program to bring support to farmers to adjust to a changing climate. It adds climate mitigation as an eligible EQIP program expense. I think it makes sense, and I would urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, this last week, the International Energy Agency came out with a very important report about climate change. They said that if we don't act soon, we are going to see extreme weather events--droughts, hurricanes, all sorts of flooding, real serious problems for our children and our grandchildren. But the important thing in this report is if we do act now, we can avert some of those horrible consequences that will face our children, and especially our grandchildren. I want to urge the Congress to take this report seriously and let us start acting to protect future generations and this planet. We only have one atmosphere we share with everyone else. Let's not pollute it so that the carbon emissions and greenhouse gases continue to heat the planet and cause climate problems that we're already witnessing today. Let's move. It will help our economy, as well as our environment.