Henry Waxman

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise to discuss a number of concerns I have about H.R. 1919, the Safeguarding America's Pharmaceuticals Act of 2013. It's a bill designed to improve the integrity of our drug supply chain. Unfortunately, this bill falls far short of achieving that goal. Throughout last year, Members on a bipartisan, bicameral basis engaged in extensive discussions on legislation to protect our drug supply chain. During those months of discussion last year--and at the Health Subcommittee's hearing this past April--we repeatedly heard loud and clear from FDA, the National Boards of Pharmacy, and many others, that if we want a secure drug supply chain, we will ultimately need an electronic interoperable system that tracks each package of drugs at the unit level and that involves the entire supply chain. This kind of system would enable us to identify illegitimate product in real-time and prevent it from ending up in patients' hands. We also heard repeatedly that creating this kind of system is doable. Unfortunately, the bill we are considering today will not create that kind of system. The bill does not require the establishment of an electronic, interoperable unit-level system. By 2027, 14 years from now, FDA will be required to issue proposed regulations for such a system. But there's no requirement that these regulations ever be finalized. And if they are ever finalized, they cannot go into effect for at least 2 more years. Almost certainly we are looking at 2030 or beyond under this proposed legislation; and, in fact, it may never be done. This bill also has a number of additional deficiencies. It fails to adequately address the potential for bad actors to introduce illegitimate product into the supply chain through supposed returns from pharmacies to wholesale distributors. In the meantime, it will prevent States from responding to particular needs they may have in regulating their wholesale distributors, and it preempts important existing State safeguards against the entry into the supply chain of unsafe counterfeit drugs before any adequate substitute will be in place. Two weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, the Senate HELP Committee unanimously approved a bill sponsored by Senators Burr, Bennet, Harkin, and Alexander that requires the establishment of a unit-level, electronic, interoperable system within 10 years and is not dependent upon FDA issuing regulations. But the Senate bill still provides plenty of notice, input, and guidance for industry stakeholders. FDA is required to hold public meetings, one or more pilot projects, and to issue draft and final guidances and, as needed, regulations. Because they will not be able to delay or prevent implementation of the system, stakeholders will have the incentive to work with FDA to see that the guidances and any needed regulations are developed and released. Our fundamental goal in establishing a Federal system should be to prevent Americans from being harmed by counterfeit and substandard medicines. If we cannot assure the public that legislation will establish a system that will protect them and that will do so by a date certain, then, in my view, it's not worth doing. The House bill needs significant improvement as it moves forward if our goal is to enact legislation that will truly protect the American public. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson), one of the original sponsors of this legislation.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to yield 3 minutes at this time to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield) to speak on this legislation.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I wish to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud).

Mr. WAXMAN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WAXMAN. I thank you for yielding to me. You're raising issues that I don't think were really brought to our attention when we were considering the legislation, and I want to look it over carefully. But I think you raise an interesting point; and as we go into the conference after this bill is passed, I want to pledge to you that I will continue to review this issue with you and others to see what the merits would be of whether this provision should continue in the bill. I talked to Chairman Upton, who told me that he would continue to review the issue as well.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit for the record three letters from the California State Board of Pharmacy and four letters from dozens of organizations representing consumers, patients, physicians, researchers, and public health advocates. These letters raise serious concerns with H.R. 1919, the track and trace legislation before us today. I would like to read a few sentences from just one of the letters: We are concerned that the legislation as currently written does not contain the minimum safeguards to keep unsafe medicines from reaching patients. The subcommittee's proposal does not create a clear path forward to a meaningful unit- level traceability system. Furthermore, the proposed legislation would eliminate all existing State drug pedigree laws--which provide essential patient safety protections as well as major tools for law enforcement. The bill would leave the U.S. pharmaceutical supply unprotected for a full 2 years before introducing even limited traceability requirements. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to read these letters carefully. They provide a detailed critique of the legislation and offer suggestions on how to fix it. I hope we can improve this bill as it moves forward through the legislative process. Comments of the Pew Charitable Trusts to House Committee on Energy and Commerce on H.R. 1919--Proposed Legislation to Improve Drug Distribution Security, May 14, 2013 Dear Chairman Upton and Ranking Member Waxman: Thank you for your ongoing interest in measures to secure the drug distribution system in the United States. We have reviewed H.R. 1919, the legislative proposal that will be considered by the Committee on Energy and Commerce on May 15. As currently drafted, this legislation does not establish meaningful patient protections and does not justify the preemption of state laws. The legislation continues to provide no guarantee that there will be a national drug distribution security system that will involve all members of the supply chain and will track drugs at the unit level within a reasonable time frame. This bill does not require a proposed regulation until 2027, and does not set a timeline for a final rule. The soonest an enhanced distribution security system could possibly be in place is 2029--assuming FDA could propose and finalize the regulations in one year. This prolonged timeline will eradicate momentum in the supply chain towards unit- level traceability, will halt progress on serialization and data sharing system development, and will seriously undermine investments already being made by stakeholders. We urge the committee to amend this legislation to establish a clear path to a unit-level traceability system, as called for by a majority of the witnesses who testified at your April 25th hearing. Pharmaceutical manufacturers are already making investments in drug serialization technology. To justify the expense--and the preemption of strong state laws--it is essential that any federal law establish meaningful patient protections through use of this technology. Legislation must achieve the following within a reasonable time frame: Participation of all members of the supply chain Traceability of drugs at the package/unit level, and Routine checking of drug serial numbers. We attach herewith our comments on the proposed legislation considered by the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health on May 8, 2013.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H.R. 1407, the Animal Drug User Fee Amendments of 2013. FDA's Animal Drug User Fee programs have been successful at speeding both brand and generic drugs for animals to the market, and that's important. However, I regret that we have not taken this opportunity to provide FDA with new tools to address a glaring public health crisis--the problem of antibiotic resistance. Antibiotics are truly a lifesaving gift. Unfortunately, the more they are used, the less they work. Untold numbers of Americans die or are infected each year by antibiotic-resistant bugs. We know that most antibiotic use occurs on the farm, and much of this issue is not to treat sick animals, but most of the use is for disease prevention or growth promotion. If it's for treating sick animals, no one could quarrel with that. Unfortunately, if it's used for growth promotion or disease prevention, that is a misuse of it and could lead to antibiotic-resistant bugs. We don't know exactly how much is for which of these two uses of the drug. That's why we need to ask industry to give us more data on how these drugs are being used, and to take steps to curtail the inappropriate use in animals of important human antibiotics. My bill, the Delivering Antibiotic Transparency in Animals, or DATA, Act, would enhance the information FDA gets about how these drugs are used. Representative Slaughter has a bill, which I have cosponsored, the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act, or PAMTA, that would curtail the inappropriate use in animals of important human antibiotics. We need to ensure that FDA not only has the resources and procedures for speeding safe and effective animal drugs to market, but also the information and tools to ensure that they are being used judiciously. I regret that we are not taking this opportunity to give FDA these tools, but I hope we will soon have an opportunity to move these bills forward. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the control of the time on my side of the aisle be given to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield), and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a member of the Safe Climate Caucus to urge the House to act on climate change. Last month, scientists recorded atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide at more than 400 parts per million. The long-term consequences of this development are going to get worse in the future, but we're already seeing the immediate impacts today. The Philadelphia Inquirer has recently reported on the sea level rising along the Delaware Bay and the spring season coming earlier to the Philadelphia region. I will insert these two articles into the Congressional Record. And just last month, the Natural Resources Defense Council released a report on the cost of climate change, showing that the Federal Government spent $100 billion on disaster relief last year. That's more than we spent on education, transportation, or even nondiscretionary spending on health. And, yet, not only does the Republican majority in the House refuse to address climate change; they're actively pursuing legislation that is sure to make things worse. We must address this problem now. Along N.J. Bay, Rising Sea Draws Ever Closer [The Inquirer, Apr. 29, 2013] [By Sandy Bauers] The night Meghan Wren got stranded by floodwaters and had to sleep in her car, she knew it was time for a reckoning. She had been driving to her waterfront home along the Delaware Bay in South Jersey. As she crossed the wide marsh in the dark, the water rose quickly. It became too deep-- ahead and behind. She had to stop and wait. To her, no longer were climate-change predictions an abstract idea. Sea level has been rising, taking her waterfront with it. ``This isn't something that's coming,'' she later told a group of bay shore residents and officials. ``It's here. We just happen to live in a place that will affect us sooner.'' Wren lives on tiny Money Island--more a peninsula of bayfront land with about 40 small homes and trailers in Cumberland County. Just visible across the grassy marsh is Gandys Beach with 80 homes. Farther south, Fortescue with 250 homes. All three are steadily disappearing' On the Atlantic coast, beach replenishment masks the effects of sea-level rise. But along the low-lying bay shore, veined with creeks, the problems are striking. With each nor'easter, more of the beachfronts erode. More of the streets and driveways flood. Septic systems, inundated with salt water, are failing. ``We're seeing beyond the normal damage,'' said Steve Eisenhauer, a regional director with the Natural Lands Trust, which has a 7,000-acre preserve in the area ``We see the problems getting worse.'' In the last century, sea level in the bay has risen a foot, gauges show, partly because the warming ocean is expanding and polar ice is melting. Also, New Jersey is sinking. All the while, humans have been pumping more and more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. The planet's average temperature has increased. ``All those links are very strong,'' said Pennsylvania State University's Raymond Najjar Jr., an expert on climate change in Mid-Atlantic estuaries. ``The reason the sea is rising as fast as it is in the Delaware Bay is human-induced climate change,'' he said, echoing many experts. Sea level is rising faster now than in the early 20th century, and scientists expect it to rise even faster in the future. The three towns' beachfronts and marshes have always been nibbled away by ship wakes, storms, and more typical erosion--but sea-level rise, combined with more frequent and intense storms, makes them all worse. Can these three communities, all within Downe Township, adapt to climate change? Or is there a point beyond which no amount of money can stop the sea? Should everyone relocate? It's been done. After a $1.8 million seawall in nearby Sea Breeze failed a year after being built, the state bought out the 23 remaining households three years ago for $3.3 million. Tiny Thompson's Beach and Moore's Beach are gone, too. These are special places, where people look out their windows and see eagles soaring. The bay turns red at sunset. Salt marshes thick with aquatic life stretch for miles. With marinas in Fortescue and Money Island, they are among the last places in South Jersey where people can access Delaware Bay--vital for generating support to preserve the rich habitat. But, like Wren, residents sometimes see white caps in their driveways. Downe officials have come up with a $50 million plan to not only shore up the shore, but also add amenities across the township to draw tourists who could revive the economy. The plan, which would cost the equivalent of $31,500 per resident, calls for bulkheads and truckloads of sand, restrooms, picnic benches, nature-viewing areas, and a township visitor center. Officials identified nearly 30 ``potential'' funders--from agencies to nonprofits. But many feel the project is a long shot. Meanwhile, bumper stickers are plastered on homes: ``No retreat. Save the Bayshore communities.'' ``I refuse to give up one house, one lot, one piece of land,'' said Robert Campbell, Downe's mayor. ``These towns are 200 years old . . . Its a special place. We've got to preserve it.'' Their survival is also fiscally crucial: they represent half of Downe's tax base He and others blame flooding not on sea-level rise but on the decline of dikes once used for salt hay farming. (Scientists say the dikes blocked the tides from naturally bolstering mashes with sediment.) Campbell also blames the state for being too tough in issuing permits for bulkheads and jetties, After Hurricane Irene struck in 2011, the town put up temporary bulkheads. The state issued violation notices. Now, those structures need restoration. too. ``We can survive'' Before modern travel made all the Atlantic beaches so easily accessible, Delaware Bay was the shore that many Philadelphians went to, In the late 1800s, Fortescue was the Cape May of the bay shore, with hotels and a boardwalk. ``We are so rich in our history,'' said Dennis Cook of Money Island, who specified in his will that his ashes be thrown off his pier ``We can survive.'' Or at least they feel compelled to try. Many residents are retirees who have sunk their savings into their homes. Now that prices have fallen, they can't get out unless the state buys them out. Nine Money Island property owners have already requested that. One is Tony Novak, owner of the local marina. He wants to stay, and thinks he can for the near future, but ``there is no doubt that the only reasonable, logical, long-term approach is strategic retreat.'' ``I have neighbors,'' he said, ``and all they have left in the world is being washed away.'' In October, Wren held a forum on what many consider the hot issue for the bay shore: ``Rising Tides.'' About 100 people went to the nearby hamlet of Bivalve on the Maurice River, and filled a chilly room in a historic shipyard shed owned by the nonprofit Bayshore Discovery Project, which Wren founded, It owns New Jersey's tall ship, a historic oyster schooner called the A.J. Meerwald, and the walls of the room were lined with vintage oyster cans. Outside, docks built in the early 1900s still exist, and old-timers notice that the tide comes up higher than it used to. On the serpentine Maurice River, erosion--a natural process worsened by sea-level rise--has almost cut through the bend at Bivalve. If it occurs, the docks might end up high and dry, and land to the east will flood. Toward the bay are ``ghost forests''--skeletons of trees killed by saltwater intrusion. Upstream, a quarter century of bird counts shows that black vultures, a Southern species, are becoming more numerous. In decline are American black ducks, which depend on a freshwater wild rice that is being depleted as saltier water moves up the Maurice River. ``The coast is changing,'' Jennifer Adkins told the group in Bivalve that night. The executive director of the Partnership for the Delaware Estuary, she cited research showing the dramatic loss of the bay's wetlands. Nearly 5,000 football fields' worth vanished from 1996 to 2006 alone, mostly from sea-level rise and erosion. Wetlands protect coastal areas by absorbing water from storm surges, so losing these natural buffers makes the bay shore communities more vulnerable. And then Matt Blake, then with the American Littoral Society, raised the topic few wanted to hear. ``Strategic retreat,'' he said ``The questions of whether to pull back or reinforce are going to come up again and again.'' He didn't claim to have an answer. But he said solutions should be based on research, not emotion ``We'll never have enough resources to defend every community. Before we start spending on new roads and bridges and pipes, we have to run a cost-benefit analysis.'' But Campbell wouldn't hear of it. ``There seems to be a double standard between the Atlantic coast communities and the Delaware Bay,'' the mayor said when he got to the lectern. A murmur of assent rose from the audience. ``I don't hear anybody talking about retreat in Atlantic City,'' he said. Or ``moving the casinos back to Absecon.'' Still, he handed out a summary of township problems: collapsed pavement, eroded road shoulders, failing seawalls. ``Downe Township is just one hurricane away from becoming a bayfront statistic'' like the three other abandoned towns. Eleven days later. Hurricane Sandy hit. Bayfront houses were undermined, the sand washing out from under them. Front steps hung in the air. Decks and front rooms were gone. Campbell said damage along the bay front totaled $20 million; about 30 homes were destroyed. ``Sandy focused everybody's attention,'' Wren said. You can't just quietly ignore [the rising ocean] anymore.'' remote and little clout The bay shore, unlike the Atlantic coast, is ill equipped to respond. Cumberland County is remote, rural, and economically depressed, the poorest county in the state. ``They don't have the population. They don't have the tax base. They don't have the votes,'' said the trust's Eisenhauer. ``They don't have the clout to get the funding they get on the Atlantic coast.'' Yet the area is hugely vulnerable. About 12 percent of the county's population lives in a floodplain, according to a federal analysis. Ditto 6 percent of the schools, police stations, and other ``critical facilities.'' Plus 10 percent of the road miles. Local leaders feel they aren't getting much help. Across the bay, Delaware has a climate-change action plan and a sea-level rise advisory group. It has listed strategies for its bay shore and analyzed the costs and benefits. ``The first step is to have rock-solid science and good economics,'' said the state's environmental head, Collin O'Mara. In New Jersey. Gov. Christie closed the Office of Climate Change, although a spokesman said several agencies deal with the issue, and many efforts have been launched since Sandy. Department of Environmental Protection spokesman Larry Hajna said officials visited Downe ``to see what we can do'' ``Sea-level rise is clearly one of the biggest concerns along the bay,'' he said, ``But at this point there aren't any long-term answers.'' Federal, state, and local entities would have to get involved, he said. Ultimately, the question may not be how to keep the waterfront intact but how to get to the towns in the first place. A new sea-level rise mapping tool from Rutgers University shows that with one more foot of rise--easily possible before century's end--the roads through the marshes would be underwater at high tide. Rude awakening Wren thought she would have more time. She imagined that the changes ``would be far enough in the future that I could figure out how to manage it''--maybe by working from home during floods. Not anymore. She and her husband, Jesse Briggs, subscribe to an alert system for when higher-than-usual tides are predicted. But in December, an alert went out at 3 a.m. When Wren woke up, it was already too late. Her Prius was swamped. Now, she drives a hybrid SUV that is six inches higher. She thinks it was hubris for humans to build on the shore. And ``it seems like folly to be trying to control nature'' now. But she's lived on the water her whole life. Briggs is captain of the A.J. Meerwald. They named their son Delbay-- for Delaware Bay. ``I can kind of see it from all sides,'' Wren said of the debate over Money Island and its neighbors. So far, it comes down to this: ``If the township decides to keep the infrastructure, I'm committed to keeping my house.''

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Today, the House Republicans are making their fourth attempt in 2 years to grant special treatment to TransCanada's Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. That's what happens when you let the oil companies set the agenda. Rather than tackling the real problems facing American families, we're passing legislation to exempt a foreign company from the rules that every other company in America has to follow. And, of course, last week we voted for the 37th time to repeal the Affordable Care Act. We're trampling our rule of law to speed Canada's dirty tar sands oil to the gulf, where it can be refined and sent to other countries tax free. That's great for the tar sands developers and refiners, like the Koch brothers and Valero, but this bill will hurt American families. It won't lower gas prices by a single penny, and it may even raise them. It will lock us into more global warming and risk our farmlands and our water supplies. No wonder Americans are cynical about Congress. I oppose the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline because it will worsen climate change. Keystone XL will lock the United States into decades of dependence on dirtier tar sands crude, reversing the carbon pollution reductions we have been working so hard to accomplish. Experts tell us that this Keystone XL will triple production of the tar sands, and that's simply not consistent with any future scenario for avoiding catastrophic climate change. We don't need it. We have our own sources of oil here in the United States, and we're using less oil because of our efficiency in new cars that are getting better mileage. So I oppose this bill for these reasons; but even if you support the pipeline, you should oppose this bill. H.R. 3 is an extreme bill. It grants a regulatory earmark to TransCanada, exempting it from all environmental requirements. It's also unnecessary. The State Department is carrying out their review of this highly controversial project. H.R. 3 would approve the pipeline by fiat, lock out the public, eliminate the President's authority to balance competing interests, and stop Federal agencies from ensuring that, if the project does go forward, we do it as safely as possible. The Keystone XL tar sands pipeline is a bad deal for America. We get all the risks, while the oil companies reap the rewards. But even if you support it, this bill is harmful and unnecessary, and I'd urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 3. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased now to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush), our ranking member on the Subcommittee on Energy.

Mr. WAXMAN. I yield the gentleman 30 more seconds.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from the State of Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased at this time to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague from the State of California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to another Member of the House from Georgia, the very distinguished gentleman, a member of our committee, Congressman John Barrow.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I now yield 2 minutes to our colleague from New York (Mr. Tonko), the ranking member of one of our Energy Subcommittees.

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

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how many speakers there are on the other side.

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

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Killer tornadoes in Oklahoma, Hurricane Sandy in New York and the Northeast, droughts in the southwest part of this country, record heat waves are now the new normal. We've seen floods; we've seen wildfires. Haven't you noticed that we've been experiencing a change in the climate? And it hasn't been good. We don't know if all of this is because of greenhouse gases. We do know enough, however, that we don't want tar sands oil to take a chance with the only planet we live in. We want jobs. Of course we want jobs. And we don't say jobs are not good enough if they're working in the pipeline construction. But we also want to protect this country and this planet; it's the only one we have. The tar sands are the dirtiest oil we can possibly get. We don't need it. We shouldn't go after it and put ourselves at a greater dependence on a source that will pollute this planet with more greenhouse gases, more carbon emissions, and more climate change. That will not be something we can look at with pride. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. WAXMAN. This amendment selects some statements from the State Department's draft supplemental Environmental Impact Statement to try to suggest that the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline poses no threat to the environment. I only wish that were the case. This is a matter of basic chemistry. Tar sands don't contain oil. It takes a lot of energy to melt and process the tar sands into something that we can use like oil. That extra energy means more carbon pollution. The State Department estimated that a gallon of gasoline from tar sands is responsible for about 17 percent more carbon pollution than the average U.S. gallon of gasoline. And it estimated that shifting to tar sands crude could add as much U.S. carbon pollution as 4.5 million more vehicles. Not surprisingly, these findings are not in this amendment. But the real problem with this amendment isn't what it leaves out. The real problem is that it tries to argue that the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline does not pose real and serious environmental harm, and that's dangerously wrong. The fact is we may be able to avoid the worst consequences of climate change or we may be able to fully develop the tar sands without capturing the carbon, but we can't have both. And building Keystone XL is critical to oil companies' plans to triple production of the tar sands. The State Department's review rests on a key assumption. They assumed that if Keystone XL isn't built, the additional tar sands production would be moved by rail. They also assumed that the extra costs of rail wouldn't be high enough to affect investments in new tar sands projects. With all due respect to the State Department, this is one case where many experts think they have just got it wrong. A recent Reuters report found big flaws in the State Department's analysis. Among other things, State assumed that rail shipment would cost about $10 per barrel, but current costs are closer to $30 per barrel. The former Alberta Energy Minister said, ``If there's something that kept me up at night, it would be the fear that before too long we're going to be landlocked in bitumen.'' A Deloitte report said, ``Unless key transportation challenges are overcome, that new oil will have nowhere to go.'' And here's TD Economics: ``Production growth cannot occur unless some of the planned pipeline projects out of Western Canada go ahead.'' And here's what AJM Petroleum Consultants have said: ``Unless we get increased market access, like with Keystone XL, we're going to be stuck. Our production is going to be the one backed out of the system.'' And here's what the former editor of Oilweek said: ``Essential to diminishing hopes for an oil sands bonanza are three proposed pipelines.'' The Canadian Energy Research Institute said, ``with Keystone XL in place and operating at capacity, bitumen production could increase substantially.'' Keystone XL Pipeline is the key to enabling a massive increase in tar sands production and locking in our dependence on this very dirty oil. This would be catastrophic for the climate. This amendment tries to downplay the climate impacts of Keystone XL, but even under the State Department's flawed analysis, there isn't another project in America with bigger climate impacts. I urge a ``no'' vote on this Weber amendment and on H.R. 3. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, and my colleagues, the issue is, if we don't build this pipeline, can that tar sands oil be trucked? Can it be taken to market? And I submit that if it's not, if we don't build this tar sands pipeline, they're not going to be able to afford to truck it anywhere else. They're trying to get us to help bail them out with this dirty tar sands oil so they can use the United States to help Canadian oil production, and we ought to say ``no.'' I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I seek recognition in support of the amendment.