Henry Waxman

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to join with so many Members of the House to express our profound concern, and strenuous opposition, to the impending request by the President of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, to seek a unilateral declaration of statehood at the United Nations later this week. The Palestinian leadership says it wants peace with Israel, but their actions and words contradict their assertions. It is not at all clear President Abbas is even capable of making peace with Israel. He refused to enter direct negotiations last year even when Israel agreed to a settlement freeze. He refuses to accept a simple statement that he accepts Israel as a Jewish state. And, as a prelude to his bid for statehood from the United Nations, he wrote in the New York Times last May: ``Palestine's admission to the United Nations would pave the way for the internationalization of the conflict as a legal matter, not only a political one.'' Recognition of statehood by the United Nations, in other words, is simply another front in the conflict--and not a settlement of the conflict. Any move towards statehood for Palestine in the United Nations is gravely flawed. First, a unilateral declaration of statehood, by the Palestinians themselves or through the United Nations, constitutes a unilateral repudiation of the peace process. A Palestinian state can only emerge at the conclusion of a peace treaty with Israel. As President Obama told the assembled leaders of the world today at the United Nations: ``There is no short cut to the end of a conflict that has endured for decades. Peace is hard work. Peace will not come through statements and resolutions at the United Nations.'' Second, a unilateral declaration by the Palestinians will not bring a State of Palestine into existence. Without agreed borders, there is no agreed state. Without an agreed state, there is no lawfully constituted government of the state of Palestine. Third, such action at the United Nations may well provoke violence in the West Bank and Gaza and possibly across the region. Excessive expectations among the Palestinians have been induced by the public campaign of the Palestinian Authority to seek statehood through the U.N. Reality cannot and will not meet those expectations--leading to immense frustration for Palestinians in the West Bank and elsewhere. In the past, this has led to successive uprisings targeting Israel. Such violence has been vicious and inhumane, with immense loss of life--and it serves no purpose. It brings neither peace nor statehood any closer. But the threat of violence overhangs the Palestinian maneuvers at the U.N. Fourth, unilateral action at the United Nations will be a major setback of incalculable duration to any meaningful resolution of the issues if there is to be a just and lasting peace with Israel, and the establishment of a Palestinian state. If the Palestinians seek to act on their own, what is there to negotiate with Israel? Where is the dialogue? What can possibly be the prospects for a meeting of the minds and a resolution of the issues of borders, security, Jerusalem, and refugees? A unilateral declaration of statehood is not a substitute for the peace process; it is a repudiation of the peace process. And that means the end to the peace process. Fifth, a recognition of Palestine by the United Nations will lead to great legal vulnerability to Israel and its government's leaders by giving Palestine standing in several international institutions, such as the International Court of Justice. No settlement of any issues or grievances between the parties can be advanced by legal harassment of Israel in international organizations. For all these reasons, I believe it is imperative that the United Nations reject any unilateral bid for statehood for Palestine. The member states of the United Nations must understand that a vote against a resolution in the General Assembly is not a vote against a Palestinian State--it is a vote to get the parties into direct negotiations so that a Palestinian State can truly and successfully and legitimately arise. As President Obama said today: ``We will only succeed in that effort if we can encourage the parties to sit down together, to listen to each other, and to understand each other's hopes and fears. That is the project to which America is committed, and that is what the United Nations should be focused on in the weeks and months to come.'' Last week, I was pleased to join with dozens of Members of the House in correspondence directed to several dozen foreign heads of state, in which we urged that their governments reject a unilateral declaration of statehood for Palestine by the United Nations. I commend our correspondence to all our colleagues. We will continue our efforts at the United Nations and redouble our commitment to the re-commencement of direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians leading to a peace agreement between them. House of Representatives, September 15, 2011. We write on a matter of great urgency, on the eve of the United Nations General Assembly meeting. It is our understanding that the leadership of the Palestinian Authority will pursue a resolution at the United Nations--in either or both the Security Council and the General Assembly--to grant the Palestinians the equivalent of statehood and/or prejudge final issues, including borders and the status of Jerusalem. One of the major goals of this effort is for the Palestinians to better position themselves to petition the International Criminal Court, very possibly bogging down the court for the foreseeable future. It is our strong belief that such unilateral action would have devastating consequences for the peace process and the Palestinians themselves. Accordingly, we urge you in the strongest terms not to support this effort. We believe that the only way to achieve a two-state solution is through direct negotiations leading to a peace treaty fully accepted by both governments and by both peoples. A just and lasting peace cannot and must not be imposed on the parties. If the Palestinians pursue such a unilateral approach, it violates the letter and spirit of the Oslo Accords and will deal a significant blow to future negotiations. Given the expectations gap among the Palestinian public, such action could lead to widespread violence on the ground, jeopardizing the West Bank's impressive economic and security gains over recent years. There is also a substantial risk of more broadly inflaming the region and increasing violence at a time of already great instability. Finally, the United States will reconsider its assistance program for the Palestinian Authority and other aspects of U.S.-Palestinian relations if they choose to pursue such a unilateral effort. We are confident that your government shares the United States' commitment to a comprehensive resolution of the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians. That outcome can only be achieved through direct negotiations. A vote on a unilateral UN resolution will likely set prospects for peace back years. Our bilateral relationship is based on certain fundamental values. We urge you to vote those values, and to stand with the United States in not supporting unilateral action at the UN that would impede the peace we all seek. Thank you for your consideration of our views. Democratic Whip Steny H. Hoyer; Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi; Rep. Gary Ackerman; Rep. Joe Baca; Rep. Shelley Berkley; Rep. Howard Berman; Rep. Madeleine Bordallo; Rep. Leonard Boswell; Rep. Dennis Cardoza; Rep. Russ Carnahan; Rep. David Cicilline; Rep. Emanuel Cleaver; Rep. Gerry Connolly; Rep. Jim Costa; Rep. Jerry Costello; Rep. Mark Critz; Rep. Joseph Crowley; Rep. Susan Davis; Rep. Rosa DeLauro; Rep. Ted Deutch. Rep. Eliot Engel; Rep. Charlie Gonzalez; Rep. Gene Green; Rep. Janice Hahn; Rep. Brian Higgins; Rep. Kathy Hochul; Rep. Tim Holden; Rep. Steve Israel; Rep. William Keating; Rep. Larry Kissell; Rep. James Langevin; Rep. John Larson; Rep. Sander Levin; Rep. Dan Lipinski; Rep. Nita Lowey; Rep. Carolyn Maloney; Rep. James McGovern; Rep. Gregory Meeks; Rep. Michael Michaud; Rep. Chris Murphy. Rep. Jerrold Nadler; Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton; Rep. Bill Owens; Rep. Gary Peters; Rep. Steven Rothman; Rep. C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger; Rep. John Sarbanes; Rep. Janice Schakowsky; Rep. Adam Schiff; Rep. Allyson Schwartz; Rep. David Scott; Rep. Brad Sherman; Rep. Heath Shuler; Rep. Albio Sires; Rep. Betty Sutton; Rep. Edolphus Towns; Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz; Rep. Henry Waxman.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, on this tenth anniversary of the attacks on our country on September 11, 2001, I simply want to pay tribute to the American people, and to our country, and what it stands for: our enduring commitment to the freedoms we cherish, to liberty and democracy, and to our system of government and our way of life. The attacks on 9/11 against the World Trade Center in New York, the Pentagon here in Washington, and over the skies of Pennsylvania, took nearly 3,000 lives. It was the worst attack against the homeland since Pearl Harbor, and a higher death toll was inflicted on 9/11 than even on that date in 1941 ``that will live in infamy,'' as Franklin Roosevelt memorialized for the nation. On this 9/11, our sole responsibilities are the simple, sacred acts of remembrance and rededication: remembrance of those whose lives were taken, and rededication to our country and its future. Those who perished will never be forgotten; their names are called out every year. And if anything, American patriotism is stronger than ever. The 9/11 attacks were directed at our freedoms, our way of life, and modern civilization itself. It was an assault against American leadership in the world, against the ideals that have guided us since the founding of the Republic, and against the rule of law and any sense of morality. But the fact is that those responsible for 9/11 could never--and will never--defeat the United States of America. No act of terrorism can overcome the spirit of the American people and our pursuit of our destiny. Our resolve from that terrible day was clear: to pursue and defeat those who perpetrated this evil, and to make sure they can never again threaten the United States of America and those who live here. As we commemorate the tenth anniversary of 9/11, we must note that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have now lasted longer than the Civil War and World War II combined. We have suffered substantial casualties--over 6,300 dead and 35,000 injured in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001. The financial cost of the two wars is over $1.2 trillion-- nearly equal to this year's Federal budget deficit. President Bush did not ask the American people for a tax increase to finance these wars, so we have not only a legacy of great human casualties, but also one of immense financial debt. The American involvement in the war in Iraq is drawing to a close, and I support President Obama's stated intention to remove all American combat forces by year's end. But I also believe it past time to end our involvement in Afghanistan. We should bring our troops home now. There is nothing more for our forces to achieve there. There are other fronts in the war on terror, such as Pakistan, Yemen, and Sudan, and we need to continue our efforts to combat violent extremists in those countries. But there is no overriding purpose served by continuing military involvement in Afghanistan. Let us leave Afghanistan to its people, and reserve the right to strike at any foe arising from Afghanistan that poses a threat to our country and its people. As a nation we grieve for those whose lives were so brutally taken on 9/11. We honor their memory, and we support their families. And I hope that all our military forces in Iraq and Afghanistan will be brought home to us very soon.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, on this 10th anniversary of the attacks on our country on September 11, 2001, I simply want to pay tribute to the American people, and to our country, and what it stands for: our enduring commitment to the freedoms we cherish, to liberty and democracy, and to our system of government and our way of life. The attacks on 9/11 against the World Trade Center in New York, the Pentagon here in Washington, and over the skies of Pennsylvania, took nearly 3,000 lives. It was the worst attack against the homeland since Pearl Harbor, and a higher death toll was inflicted on 9/11 than even on that date in 1941 ``that will live in infamy,'' as Franklin Roosevelt memorialized for the nation. On this 9/11, our sole responsibilities are the simple, sacred acts of remembrance and rededication: remembrance of those whose lives were taken, and rededication to our country and its future. Those who perished will never be forgotten; their names are called out every year. And if anything, American patriotism is stronger than ever. The 9/11 attacks were directed at our freedoms, our way of life, and modern civilization itself. It was an assault against American leadership in the world, against the ideals that have guided us since the founding of the Republic, and against the rule of law and any sense of morality. But the fact is that those responsible for 9/11 could never--and will never--defeat the United States of America. No act of terrorism can overcome the spirit of the American people and our pursuit of our destiny. Our resolve from that terrible day was clear: to pursue and defeat those who perpetrated this evil, and to make sure they can never again threaten the United States of America and those who live here. As we commemorate the tenth anniversary of 9/11, we must note that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have now lasted longer than the Civil War and World War II combined. We have suffered substantial casualties--over 6,300 dead and 35,000 injured in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001. The financial cost of the two wars is over $1.2 trillion--nearly equal to this year's Federal budget deficit. President Bush did not ask the American people for a tax increase to finance these wars, so we have not only a legacy of great human casualties, but also one of immense financial debt. The American involvement in the war in Iraq is drawing to a close, and I support President Obama's stated intention to remove all American combat forces by year's end. But I also believe it past time to end our involvement in Afghanistan. We should bring our troops home now. There is nothing more for our forces to achieve there. There are other fronts in the war on terror, such as Pakistan, Yemen, and Sudan, and we need to continue our efforts to combat violent extremists in those countries. But there is no overriding purpose served by continuing military involvement in Afghanistan. Let us leave Afghanistan to its people, and reserve the right to strike at any foe arising from Afghanistan that poses a threat to our country and its people. As a nation we grieve for those whose lives were so brutally taken on 9/11. We honor their memory, and we support their families. And I hope that all our military forces in Iraq and Afghanistan will be brought home to us very soon.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the debt ceiling and deficit reduction legislation and will vote against the bill. Raising the debt ceiling should be a legislative act that allows us to meet the obligations our country has already incurred. But this legal formality has been taken hostage by the Republican Party and tied to dangerous and extraordinary demands regarding spending and taxes that affect everyone in our country. As a result, we have a crisis that has been wholly manufactured. Our national debate has been paralyzed. Millions of Americans have been frightened about whether Social Security checks and salaries for our armed forces will be paid, financial markets have been rattled, and America's fiscal responsibility has been tarnished in the eyes of the world. As a matter of economic policy, the spending cuts in this legislation will do harm to the economy and will curb our ability to stimulate job growth. Our economy is weak. The recovery is stalled. Our workers and households need action from Congress that helps promote growth and investment. With unemployment over 9 percent and growth at barely 1 percent, the last thing we need is for Washington to take the wind out of the sails of future growth. Cutting spending by over $2 trillion hurts the economy's ability to move forward. As a matter of equity, this package is not balanced. It is all spending cuts, cuts that are deeper because we are blocked by the Republicans' refusal to consider revenues to be gained from asking the wealthy and fortunate to play their fair share. There is nothing to end egregious tax expenditures benefiting corporations or to ask our most profitable companies today, such as the oil industry to pay a little more; or to have the burden of deficit reduction shared, even a little bit, by the wealthiest among us. This is not fair. It is willfully one- sided. And given the magnitude of the task before us to deal responsibly with our long term debt, it is not right. As a matter of protecting and strengthening Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, this legislation is also gravely deficient. There may be buffers for these programs in the sequester, but the pressure to cut these programs as a part of the new joint congressional committee that is established to secure an additional $1.5 trillion in spending cuts will be extreme. There will be tremendous pressure to restructure these programs in order to forestall additional defense cuts and additional cuts to discretionary spending. Such changes will undermine our country's promise to the elderly, the poor, the vulnerable. Raising the eligibility age for Medicare or Social Security, or cutting benefit levels, will be subject to an up- or-down vote by this new joint committee. No amendments can be offered or voted on. This process weakens Congress as an institution, and it is a dangerous abdication of our responsibility for these bedrock programs. We have worked over the years to make careful changes to Medicare when necessary to restore its solvency. In the Affordable Care Act, we enacted careful reforms that will improve the efficiency and soundness of Medicare. Arbitrary cuts to the program through sequestration, or rushed cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, are no way to guarantee the future of those vital programs. We run the risk of substantial changes that will drive providers out of the system, leaving patients without access to doctors or to nursing homes and long term care services. This legislation does not represent the values to which I have been committed since first being elected to Washington. That is why I have concluded that this package does not deserve my support today.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bipartisan bill to amend the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008. The 2008 act was a historic piece of legislation, both because of the landmark health and safety protections in that bill for young children and because of the near unanimous support for that legislation from Democrats and Republicans. And it has been a success. Because of the Consumer Product Safety Act, we now have in place basic safety standards for keeping toxic lead and phthalates out of children's products. The CPSC has made long overdue revisions to safety standards for cribs. Manufacturers and retailers have begun the process of testing to make sure children's products are proven safe before they have been put on the store shelves and into the hands of children. The Consumer Product Safety Commission, after years of atrophy due to budget cuts and neglect, has been reinvigorated and become proactive, rather than reactive. As a result, we have seen a decline in the number of children's products that have to be pulled from homes and store shelves. The agency is intercepting more dangerous products at the border. And, finally, the American public has since March had access to consumer product safety information in a database that they can review about injuries from consumer products. Consumers now have free and open access to information that for too long remained hidden inside the CPSC. But like any law, the 2008 act had some rough edges that needed to be smoothed out. For example, there are some products that require a small amount of lead to maintain their strength and durability and don't pose a serious threat to public health or safety. ATVs and bicycles are examples of these. Some businesses expressed concern that they could find themselves with inventory that meets the current legal limit of 300 parts per million that can no longer be sold when the limit drops to 100 parts per million on August 14, just 2 weeks away. The smallest of small businesses are worried that they can't bear the cost of complying with these requirements in the way that larger businesses can. This bill addresses these concerns without jeopardizing our children's safety. It is a compromise bill in the best sense. Some Members on the other side wanted bigger changes to the 2008 act and some Members on our side do not believe every provision in the bill is needed. But thanks to the hard work of my colleagues, Mrs. Bono Mack, Mr. Butterfield, Mr. Barton and Mr. Dingell, and the leadership of Chairman Upton, we have arrived at a bill that I can support and urge my colleagues to join in supporting as well. I think we have struck the right balance. We have fixed valid problems and keep in place valuable health and safety protections for children. That has been my primary goal throughout this process. It was a long road to get to this place and after many hours and many months of tough negotiating, what we have here is a compromise that epitomizes bipartisanship. Neither side got everything it wanted, but both sides gave up enough that we were able to come up with something that was sensible and reasonable and that we can move quickly through this body. I hope the Senate sees it that way and can move quickly on this bill. We all share the belief that American businesses should be able to grow and flourish. I also think we all share the belief that consumers, especially children, deserve safe products. Again, I commend Chairwoman Bono Mack and Chairman Upton for their willingness to hear us out and to work with us. I thank Mr. Butterfield for fighting for a balanced approach that keeps large and small businesses competitive and continues to keep our children safe from potentially dangerous products. I also want to thank the other members of the Energy and Commerce Committee that have been active and helped us to get to today, including Mr. Dingell, Mr. Rush, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Markey, Mr. Towns, Ms. DeGette, and Ms. Eshoo.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in complete opposition to this rule and the underlying legislation. I have never witnessed such a legislative and political travesty. The Republican majority is threatening to take the entire economy hostage unless we write their draconian budget--which would end Medicare and Medicaid--into the Constitution. Throughout this week, the Republican leadership and Republican caucus have been operating in a world of unreality. The Speaker and his team have persisted in passing legislation that everyone in the real world knows is dead on arrival in the Senate. Today, we have moved from unreality to fantasy. We are being told that if we do not pass a constitutional amendment to end Medicare and Medicaid, then the debt limit will not be raised-- the United States of America will default--and the American people will suffer grievously. I want to remind the House why the underlying Boehner legislation is so unacceptable. At its heart, this bill is a mortal threat to Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and the protections of the Affordable Care Act. The Boehner legislation will end Medicare as we know it by turning it into a voucher program and raising premium costs to beneficiaries by thousands of dollars per year. Medicaid will be eviscerated, throwing women and children and seniors in nursing homes into great distress. Social Security will be on the chopping block. The retirement age will be raised and benefits will be cut. And under a balanced budget amendment, Congress will be placed in a straightjacket and the government will not be able to respond to compelling humanitarian and public health needs in times of economic downturns. This is not the moment to engage in fantasy. This House must take its responsibilities seriously and do its proper duty for the nation. The bill before us, with the poison pill of a balanced budget amendment, is a vicious assault on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, along with public health, scientific research and environmental protection. I urge the defeat of this rule and the terrible consequences that will flow from it.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in vigorous opposition to this ill- conceived legislation. Speaker Boehner's plan is not the answer to the urgent issue of raising the debt ceiling. If it becomes law, it will eviscerate the well-being of the American people. It is, in fact, a disgrace that we are considering this measure at this late hour when we are days away from defaulting on the full faith and credit of the United States. The Republican leadership should have reached a compromise with President Obama and Senator Reid weeks ago. When President George W. Bush was elected, he inherited from President Clinton a surplus of tens of billions of dollars. But during his Presidency, two wars, a series of tax cuts, and a pharmaceutical benefit plan that no one paid for increased our national debt by over $5 trillion. After years of irresponsibility, the Republican leadership now wants working families, seniors, pregnant women, children, and the poor to pay for their spending binge. And they are using the debt limit to try to enforce their extreme Tea Party agenda. Most of this terrible burden will fall on the programs that provide health and economic security to American families: Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security and the Affordable Care Act. These are programs I have fought for and supported throughout my service in Congress. But they face a terrible toll, inflicted in two cruel steps. First, the Republican plan imposes immediate cuts approaching $1 trillion. Then, Congress is required to legislate, later this year, another series of massive spending cuts of at least $1.6 trillion. These Republican budget cuts would have severe consequences. They would end Medicare as we know it, ending its guarantees of coverage for hospital care, chemotherapy, doctor's visits, and prescription drugs. In its place, the Republicans want to substitute a voucher system where seniors would be forced into the private market to buy health insurance with only limited financial support from the government. The Republican budget plan already approved by the House will increase premiums and cost sharing by at least $6,000 per person. The cuts required by this legislation would be even deeper. The Republican budget cuts will destroy Medicaid too. Their budget, approved by the House, would cut Medicaid in half by 2022, leaving tens of millions of people without access to care. People in nursing homes would be cut off. The Republican budget would also slash support for the Children's Health Insurance Program which, together with Medicaid, cover over one third of America's kids. Medicaid is the primary payer for long-term care and the home and community-based services that help people stay out of nursing homes. Who will now bear the $72,000 per year cost of a nursing home for an 85-year-old grandmother who collects $10,000 a year in Social Security benefits? Her children will try, but only the rich will be able to afford the costs in today's economy. Social Security is next in line. The Republicans claim this legislation doesn't affect Social Security. But with budget cuts of this size--and no new revenues--Social Security will be on the chopping block. This bill gives a new 12-member committee a blank check to raise the retirement age, cut benefits, and squeeze the poorest retirees even harder. The Republican cuts also go to the heart of other public health programs that are so essential to all of us. Budget cuts of the magnitude sought by the Republicans mean severe funding reductions in biomedical research to fund the cures we need for diseases like cancer, heart disease and Alzheimer's. Food safety enforcement will be curtailed. Programs to discourage tobacco use and prevent the marketing of tobacco to children will be threatened. It is almost unthinkable that we find ourselves in this position today. We are on the brink of a fiscal emergency. If we do not pass a debt limit extension, the United States Government will default next week. Yet there still is no compromise. The President, the Treasury Secretary, and others have outlined in explicit detail that default risks another catastrophic financial crisis and severe harm to American families, including the stoppage of Social Security checks, paychecks to our armed forces, and government contracts with the private sector. Food stamps, disability and veterans payments, paychecks to federal workers, IRS tax refunds, and black lung disease benefit payments are all vulnerable to interruption. In all, 70 million people and companies will be affected beginning next week. In addition, we will lose, for the first time in our history, our AAA credit rating that establishes the United States as the world's safest investment. As a result, it will cost more to borrow money across the board, and this will have the effect of a huge tax increase on American households across the country. Municipalities and counties in every state will face this same stark reality--as will small businesses, millions of American homeowners, and countless others. Speaker Boehner's legislation is fatally flawed because it provides for a two-step process to raise the debt limit. This is exactly the wrong approach. We need legislation that is long-term and balanced. That is the only thing that will provide the certainty and stability and confidence our economy needs and that the markets require. Keeping the debt limit on such a short leash only ensures that it will persist as the overriding, unresolved domestic policy issue for the next several months--perpetuating uncertainty and anxiety and discouraging investment and job creation. By distracting this House from coherent action on what we urgently need to do today--raise the debt ceiling--the Republicans are courting disaster for every American who makes a house payment, or a car payment, or is paying off a credit card balance, or who has a business loan or a personal line of credit. Mr. Speaker, we are at a very serious point. This is not the moment to engage in fantasy. This House must take its responsibilities seriously and do its proper duty for the nation. And that duty is not to wrap the budget and the American economy in a straightjacket. That proper duty is to authorize the payment of the debts we have incurred, restore certainty, and end the fear and anxiety their brinkmanship has instigated. The bill before us is a vicious assault on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, along with public health, scientific research and environmental protection. It is a prescription for default, a recipe for financial chaos, and a checklist of hardship and woe for the American people. I urge its defeat.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I yield myself 5 minutes. I rise in opposition to H.R. 1938. This legislation is unnecessary and it's harmful. It cuts short the State Department's ongoing review of the Keystone XL tar sands crude pipeline, it would deny the public an adequate opportunity to comment on whether the pipeline should be built, and it benefits a specific foreign company, TransCanada Corporation, at the expense of the American people. There are really two distinct questions here: Do you think the Keystone XL pipeline is a good idea? And does this legislation make any sense? I happen to think that the Keystone XL pipeline is a bad idea; but even if you support the pipeline, you should oppose this bill. The Keystone XL pipeline would carry a sludge made from Canadian tar sands through the middle of America. In doing so, it would raise gas prices, endanger water supplies, and increase carbon emissions; and that's why it should not be approved. Keystone XL is a highly controversial project. The State Department received over 200,000 comments on the supplemental draft environmental impact statement. Once it is built, we will live with the pipeline and its impacts for 50 years or more. This is a decision we need to get right. Unfortunately, this bill's approach does not get it right. Instead, it says whatever the risks and costs, just get it done. H.R. 1938 takes the extraordinary step of interfering in an ongoing decisionmaking process by the Secretary of State. The Secretary is in the midst of determining whether granting the permit requested by TransCanada would be in the national interest. The process for making these permit decisions was established by Executive orders issued by President Johnson and President George W. Bush. The State Department says that it plans to issue the final environmental impact statement in mid-August and the final decision by the end of the year. That's when the applicants say they need a decision. This bill overrides the Executive orders and other Federal law, it short-circuits the decisionmaking process, and it requires the President to make a decision within 30 days of the final environmental impact statement. This effectively eliminates the opportunity for public comment on the national interest determination, and it cuts the time for consulting with other agencies by two-thirds. That doesn't make sense, especially when you consider the potential risk. My greatest concern is that Keystone XL will make us more reliant on the dirtiest source of fuel currently available. On a life-cycle basis, tar sands emit far more carbon pollution than conventional oil--almost 40 percent more by some estimates. That's because it takes huge amounts of energy to take something the consistency of tar, which they mine, and turn it into synthetic oil. We should be reducing our oil dependence and using cleaner fuels, but Keystone is a big step in the wrong direction. There are many other concerns, including safety. Today is the 1-year anniversary of the Kalamazoo River oil pipeline spill, and 30 miles of the river are still closed. A few weeks ago, there was a massive oil pipeline spill into the Yellowstone River. And TransCanada, Keystone XL's owner and operator, has had 12 spills on the first Keystone pipeline in its first year of operation. Keystone One was even shut down by the Department of Transportation as ``hazardous to life, property, and the environment.'' The risks from spills are exacerbated with Keystone XL because it is rooted through the Ogallala aquifer, which spans eight States and provides drinking water for 2 million people. With all of these risks, the benefits are unclear. A study commissioned by DOE found that we will have excess pipeline capacity from Canada for the next decade or more, even without Keystone XL. And Keystone XL will likely raise, not lower, gas prices. In its permit application, TransCanada told the Canadian Government that by raising prices for crude oil in the Midwest, Keystone XL will increase revenue for Canadian producers by $2 billion to $4 billion a year. But even if you believe we should build Keystone XL, you should oppose this legislation.

Mr. WAXMAN. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds. If you think the project has merit, let it be approved on the merits, not rushed to judgment without public comment. Cutting the public out of the process and ramming this through will only increase opposition to this project. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 1938. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I am pleased at this time to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute and ask if he will yield to me.

Mr. WAXMAN. I must say that we've heard comments on the floor and in committee on this bill that it's going to allow us to become less dependent, maybe not even dependent at all, on Saudi Arabia; that we'll be able to be self-sufficient and have lower prices because of this pipeline. But the truth of the matter is that some economists believe that this oil pipeline will bring oil to Texas, and that oil will either be refined or shipped as crude oil to China. It doesn't help us to have any excess oil if it's going to be picked up and shipped to China. I think that we need to always have in mind that the United States of America uses 25 percent of the world's oil resources and we have 2 percent of the source of those resources--the reserves--here in the United States. We are always going to be dependent on imported oil unless we start moving away from oil itself. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I am pleased at this time to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair and Members of this House, climate change is real. We're experiencing its effects. According to The Washington Post, almost 2,000 high temperature records have been broken in towns and cities across America since the start of the month. Another 4,300 records have been set for high overnight temperatures. I don't think that we should short-circuit consideration of a pipeline that increases our consumption of tar sands crude with up to 40 percent higher carbon pollution. That is not in our national interest. Even the National Farmers Union is urging opposition to this legislation. They say: ``NFU continues to have serious concern regarding the Keystone XL pipeline as currently proposed. We believe all necessary time should be taken for public review and analysis of options for the proposed project. Congress should not fix a hard deadline for this process to be completed.'' I urge a ``no'' vote on this legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. I hope the press and the American people are paying attention to what's going on on the House floor. I know the news is all about raising the debt ceiling and all the cuts or revenues that might be involved before we can get legislation to do something that has been routinely done--almost automatically done--every year or two for decades. What is happening on the House floor deserves the attention of the American people. This is the most antienvironmental House of Representatives in history. The new Republican majority seems intent on restoring the robber-baron era where there were no controls on pollution from power plants, oil refineries, and factories. This year, we've witnessed weather disaster after weather disaster. There have been massive floods, record-breaking fires, record-breaking droughts, and now record-breaking heat waves. Yet earlier this year, the House passed a bill that repealed EPA's scientific finding that climate change is occurring, is caused by man, and is a serious threat. We don't hear about the connection between these weather events and climate change and carbon emissions. We're not hearing about it when we watch the daily news shows and we're not hearing about it from this administration. I just sent, recently, a letter to Secretary Chu, the Secretary of Energy, a Nobel Prize winner, asking him to speak out. We need to educate the American people so we can educate our colleagues here in the House of Representatives. In this bill, the Republican majority wants to block EPA from issuing regulations to reduce carbon emissions from power plants and oil refineries that are causing this catastrophic climate change. The majority also wants to block regulations to cut carbon pollution from motor vehicles, even though these regulations help break our dangerous dependence on oil, save American families money, and clean the air we breathe. This House can deny science, we can amend our Nation's laws, but we cannot rewrite the laws of nature. The longer we ignore the scientific reality that our actions are destabilizing the environment, destabilizing our climate, the more costly and disruptive our response will need to be--and the more we endanger our children's future. When we were debating carbon regulations earlier this year, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle claimed that they supported reductions in what they call ``real'' air pollution, whatever that means. But it turns out they're gutting those protections as well. This legislation includes provisions that will block landmark rules to protect the health of our children by cutting air pollution and reducing toxic mercury pollution. The bill blocks the Cross-State Air Pollution rule--an important rule that is designed to prevent dirty power plants in one State from contributing to air quality problems in other downwind States. EPA estimates that this rule will prevent up to 34,000 premature deaths and nearly 2 million sick days a year beginning in 2014. The bill indefinitely delays mercury and air toxics standards from power plants. Mercury is a potent neurotoxin that damages brain development in infants and children, impairing their ability to think and learn. EPA's mercury rule will clean up this pollution and prevent 17,000 premature deaths each year. Republicans like to argue that environmental regulations must be justified by a rigorous cost-benefit analysis. Well, these regulations have been thoroughly analyzed and their benefits are 10 times greater than their cost, yet they want to stop those regulations from going into place. These essential health protections are not being targeted because they are too costly. They are being targeted because they are opposed by powerful special interests like oil companies and electric utilities. We need to stop putting the special interests ahead of the public interest. This bill poses a choice: Are we for protecting pregnant women, infants, and children from toxic pollution or are we for protecting the profits of special interests? A strong and vital EPA is in our national interest and the public interest. If we disarm EPA--as this bill would do--there is no one to stand up to the polluters and protect American families. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chair, earlier today, during consideration of H.R. 2354, Ms. Capps offered an amendment that would have required peer- reviewed seismic studies to be completed and lessons learned from the Japanese nuclear disaster before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission considers an application to renew the operating licenses for the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant in California. I thought this was a reasonable approach. Unfortunately, that amendment was ruled out of order. Though this second Capps amendment is less precise than the original amendment, I support it because I believe it is crucial that the necessary seismic studies be completed and considered during the license renewal process. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must have a comprehensive understanding of what went wrong at the Fukushima Daiichi reactors and access to the latest scientific information in order to ensure that Diablo Canyon can be safely operated after the current licenses expire in 2024 and 2025. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Republican plan to end Medicare and the health care safety net. Republicans are playing a dangerous game of chicken. They are threatening to hold the global economy hostage unless President Obama and the Senate agree to their demands to slash Medicare and Medicaid. We must reject this assault on seniors, the disabled, and children. Previous amendments to the Constitution have ended slavery and guaranteed the rights of citizens of all races to equal treatment under the law. They have guaranteed the freedoms of speech and religion, and for protection from unwarranted government intrusions on personal rights. What great principle do Republicans seek to enshrine into the Constitution today? The principle that the rich should never pay more taxes; That Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are too expensive for our Nation to afford; And the U.S. Congress should be stripped of its ability to increase spending to protect our economy from recession. Republicans say that they are protecting Medicare for the future-- don't buy it. That's what they told us about their budget plan. It wasn't true then, and it isn't true now. Republicans tried to end Medicare as we know it in the budget they passed in April. Public outrage stalled their plans. So today they have a new approach: Pass a constitutional amendment that that would make it impossible for Congress to continue to fund Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Their objective is to end Medicare as we know it, repealing its guarantees of coverage for hospital care, chemotherapy, doctor's visits, and prescription drugs. In its place they would create a voucher system--and yes, it is a voucher. Seniors would be forced into the private market to buy health insurance with only limited financial support from the government. This plan will increase premiums and cost sharing by $6,000 per person. And they want to write it into the Constitution! And they want to destroy Medicaid too. Republicans would cut Medicaid in half by 2022, leaving tens of millions of people without access to care. People in nursing homes would be cut off. They would also slash support for the Children's Health Insurance Program, jeopardizing access to care for 8 million kids. Medicaid is the primary payer for long-term care and the home and community-based services that help people stay out of nursing homes. Who will now bear the $72,000 per year cost of a nursing home for an 85-year old grandmother who collects $10,000 a year in Social Security benefits? Her children will try, but only the rich will be able to afford the costs in today's economy. This is a complete abdication of our commitment to providing care with dignity for our seniors. The Republican proposal has other deplorable consequences. It would make it impossible to invest in biomedical research to find tomorrow's cures and technologies for cancer, Alzheimer's, and heart disease. It would effectively foreclose the possibility that Congress could address climate change by putting a price on carbon emissions. It would cripple the FDA, threatening the safety of our pharmaceuticals and our food. This is an extreme and dangerous proposal. Instead of holding our seniors hostage, we need to work together to pass a realistic compromise that will ensure we honor our debt while lowering our deficit. I urge a no vote on this legislation.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, the Palestinian plan to unilaterally declare statehood targets the core underpinning of the peace process--the principle of mutual recognition. In their tactics and their tone, Palestinian leaders have proclaimed that seeking to delegitimize Israel is more important to them than a prosperous future for their own people. It is a travesty and a tragedy. To reiterate what President Obama made clear in his May 19 speech: ``Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist.'' For all the terrorist attacks that have claimed thousands of Israeli lives, for all the domestic trauma and security risks Israel undertook in its withdrawals from Gaza and Lebanon, for all the settlement freezes and stalled talks, Israel has always returned to the negotiating table in faith that a peace agreement is possible. But unilateral Palestinian declaration of statehood is the one thing from which the peace process cannot recover. What will be left to negotiate? And at this point who will be there to negotiate with? The PLO? Hamas? A ``technocratic'' unity government that has no political standing? If the Palestinian leadership is serious about statehood and about entering the United Nations as a responsible, sovereign nation, it should drop its preconditions, reenter direct talks and recognize Israel as a Jewish State. I strongly support H. Res. 268, which reaffirms Administration policy and previous congressional resolutions on this issue. With this vote, we must redouble efforts to work with our allies and the international community to pressure the Palestinian leadership to change course towards a just and lasting peace.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise to manage the time on this bill on behalf of the Energy and Commerce Committee Democrats.

Mr. WAXMAN. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire).