Henry Waxman

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

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

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining on each side?

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

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. I want to clarify some statements that have been made that are absolutely inaccurate. There may be Members who are unhappy about EPA regulations as they hear from their constituents, but that is not what is involved in this bill today. This bill would stop EPA from regulating as it relates to carbon emissions; and EPA has undertaken this because of a scientific finding that carbon emissions are causing a danger to public health and the environment. EPA, under the Clean Air Act, has a wide range of possible regulations, but EPA has decided that they would restrict their regulations only to large new sources or expansion of existing sources of pollution of 100,000 tons per year, and that is all.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. I want to refute the statements that have just been made. There is a court doctrine allowing EPA to design regulations that are tailored according to administrative necessity, and they need not go beyond that. The complaint on the other side is that there is a wide-ranging regulation, but there is not. And there will be an amendment offered by Representatives Kind and Owens to restrict the regulations by law to what the EPA is implementing. And I hope the gentleman that spoke just now will vote for that amendment. But whether it passes or not, EPA can tailor its regulation, and they ought not complain about a regulation that's not being proposed. They don't want even the minimal one that EPA is implementing. If we don't legislate and we don't regulate, we are ignoring the problem and we're going to make it much, much worse and costlier to correct later on. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased at this time to yield 3 minutes to the Democratic whip in the House, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. WAXMAN. I continue to reserve my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. I find myself in the same position. I am prepared to close and yield back my time, unless one of our Members shows up unexpectedly.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, I have before me a letter from the United States Environmental Protection Agency. We asked them very specific questions, and one was whether this would establish a back-door cap-and-trade program. They said, one, EPA has not adopted a cap-and-trade program to address greenhouse gas emissions; two, EPA is not considering or evaluating a cap-and-trade program to address these emissions under existing Clean Air Act authority; and they further went on to say they do not anticipate that they will do a cap-and-trade program. None of the five programs that they have adopted or are considering adopting to limit harmful pollutions are cap-and-trade programs. So when we hear Members get up and say, oh, they're about to adopt a cap-and-trade program because Jerry Seinfeld's show might lead you to that conclusion, it is not, according to Lisa Jackson, the head of EPA, their intent. EPA, under the law, is required to look at the science. Once they determined that carbon is a pollutant that causes harm to public health and the environment, they must regulate. They could, under their powers, fashion the regulation in a modest way, which is exactly what they've done. The regulations that they are implementing can be met through greater efficiency in these new sources that would emit such large amounts of carbon. That is a reasonable thing to do because it is beneficial for the industries to be more efficient. We have found over the years, under the Clean Air Act, when sources of pollution, industries, reduce their pollution, they become more efficient and more competitive. That's what will happen as a result of the regulations that are being implemented. Let us not tie EPA's hands and say they cannot deal with this subject. For those who deny the science, I disagree with you. But if you're wrong, it will take a long time before any strategy will come into effect to reduce these emissions. Buy at least an insurance policy to reduce these dangerous pollutants so that we can avoid some of the terrible consequences of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, which are already evident in this country and around the world. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. Vote ``no.'' I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you for yielding to me. This bill, the EPA does not put a price on carbon. The EPA is not setting up a cap-and-trade program. The EPA is only saying, in new facilities with large amounts of carbon emissions, put in efficiency standards so that you can reduce those emissions. That's all.

Mr. WAXMAN. Two and two. Let's do 2 minutes each.

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent that we expand the debate by 2 minutes on each side on this particular amendment.

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. WAXMAN. Parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, my inquiry is: Must the debate be on the pending amendment or can the debate be on a broader bill?

Mr. WAXMAN. I thank the majority for their graciousness in allowing for a clarification. This amendment simply says all that you suggest in your bill would become law, if it were passed, with the exception that we would continue to allow the EPA to give technical information to the States. It does not replace the other restrictions on EPA. It only allows them to give technical information to the States, which they do already without regulating greenhouse gases, under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which was ratified by the Senate in 1992 after submittal by President Bush. Because of this international agreement, we try to keep track of what's going on, and the States should be able to talk to the EPA and to get expert advice from the EPA unless you think the States should not be allowed to do anything on their own, which would be something beyond the scope of this amendment. So I would urge my colleagues who support their bill not to be against this amendment.

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I rise to offer an amendment, with my colleagues Representatives DeGette and Inslee, that recognizes the scientific reality of climate change. Our amendment states that Congress accepts EPA's scientific finding that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for public health and welfare. This simple recognition is far from enough, but it is crucially important. As long as Congress pretends that climate change isn't occurring, we can justify not addressing it. Last month, the eminent scientific journal Nature wrote an editorial entitled, ``Into Ignorance.'' And I want to read from this editorial: ``Republicans on the Energy and Commerce Committee have made clear their disdain for climate science. At a subcommittee hearing, misinformation was presented as fact, truth was twisted, and nobody showed any inclination to listen to scientists. There has been an embarrassing display, not just for the Republican Party, but also for Congress and the U.S. citizens it represents.'' The U.S. Congress has entered the intellectual wilderness. This amendment is a step out of that wilderness. It says we accept the scientific findings of EPA--and the best scientists in our country and around the world--that climate change is a serious threat to our health and welfare. And it recognizes that while we have the power to change the laws of our Nation, we cannot rewrite the laws of nature. It may be difficult for us to agree on a solution to climate change, but at least we should be able to agree that it is a real problem and one we need to address. I hope my colleagues will support this amendment. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, to close, I yield the balance of my time to my colleague, who is a cosponsor of this legislation along with myself and Mr. Inslee, the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. WAXMAN. The important thing about this amendment is that we reduce the demand for oil, which is the primary area where we are dependent upon OPEC countries. And to do that, we have tighter fuel efficiency standards. Without the Markey amendment, the EPA would not be able to continue with those tight fuel efficiency standards for motor vehicles, planes, et cetera. According to Lisa Jackson from the EPA, who testified before our committee, this bill ``would forfeit many hundreds of millions of barrels of oil savings at a time when gas prices are rising yet again.'' I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would vote to massively increase America's oil independence. I urge all Members to support the Markey amendment so we don't massively increase our oil dependence.

Mr. WAXMAN. I rise in support of the Rush amendment. The problem of national security is threatened in two ways by the Inhofe-Upton bill. It increases our oil dependence because we take away the tools for addressing this oil dependence by not allowing EPA to set tighter efficiency standards which reduce our demand for oil. Secondly, it takes away our tools to deal with the problem of climate change itself. Former senior military officers wrote to us and asked that we not undermine the Clean Air Act. They are concerned this will increase our dependence on oil, and that such dependence is truly dangerous. In 2009, 10 retired general and admirals described how our oil dependence funds terrorism. It puts large sums of money in the hands of unfriendly regimes like Iran and Venezuela. Iran provides weapons to Hezbollah and supports insurgents in Iraq. And climate change itself, according to the State Department, is going to bring about more migrant and refugee flows, more conflicts over resources, drought and famine, and catastrophic natural disasters. That is a threat to our national security, and the Rush amendment will allow EPA to address it.

Mr. WAXMAN. The advocates of the underlying bill have said that EPA is going to regulate a lot of other sources. What this Kind-Owens amendment does is says that EPA will not be allowed to regulate farms, small businesses, and other small and medium-size sources of pollution. This makes sense, and it deals with the problem that has been raised about EPA. It is a commonsense solution. We ought to support it and make sure that the tailoring rule is all that would be applicable for EPA to do.