Henry Waxman

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. I thank you for yielding. I just am astounded by some of the things that are said in the House, that there has not been a careful analysis of this proposal and the harm that comes with these mercury pollutants, because the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, the people in your State that enforce the clean air laws, talked about regulation yielding $7 billion to $18 billion annually in benefits, which is enormous when compared to the estimated $350 million and $950 million in annual costs. Cement plants employ workers who also can get sick from all of this, but the American cement industry did us a report of their own on this; and in November of last year, analysis by the Portland Cement Association predicts that domestic cement production will increase more than 25 percent from today's levels by 2013 when these rules go into effect and more than 50 percent by 2015. So they don't think they're going to be losing jobs under this proposal. My friend from Texas (Mr. Barton) says, well, these are trace amounts. This is a very intense toxic substance. And he said there hasn't been a vigorous analysis. Well, we've got numbers with the analysis that we've had. I don't know what analysis the cement caucus has for us, but I think that Mr. Markey was correct when he stated this is an industry in certain areas that wants to avoid spending money to stop the pollution from their plants, and it is just not a good excuse to me to say that because some of the mercury comes from overseas and other places we should allow the mercury to continue right here in the United States. National Association of Clean Air Agencies, Washington, DC, February 17, 2011. Dear Representative: On behalf of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA), we are writing to express our opposition to Amendment No. 165 to H.R. 1 (introduced by Rep. John Carter and expected to be considered on February 17, 2011), which would prohibit FY 2011 funds from being used to implement, administer or enforce the ``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry and Standards of Performance for Portland Cement Plants.'' The standards affected by this amendment were published on September 9, 2010 and are designed to reduce emissions of air pollutants from Portland Cement Manufacturing facilities. NACAA is the association of air pollution control agencies in 51 states and territories and over 165 major metropolitan areas across the United States. The rules EPA adopted are not only consistent with the provisions of the Clean Air Act, but are necessary to protect public health. Portland Cement manufacturing facilities emit mercury, hydrochloric acid, hydrocarbons, dioxins, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, and other harmful pollutants, which are known or suspected to cause a host of significant health problems, including cancer, and even death. These facilities are the third largest source in the United States of air emissions of mercury, which is a persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic air pollutant. Even very low emissions of this potent neurotoxicant can result in unacceptable impacts to the nation's water bodies. To date, all 50 states have issued health advisories for fish consumption due to mercury contamination, with the primary loadings being from atmospheric deposition. NACAA believes the controls contained in the regulations are essential and should be implemented. The rules will result in significant and much-needed reductions in emissions from cement kilns, including decreases of 92 percent in mercury, 83 percent in total hydrocarbons, 92 percent in particulate matter, 97 percent reduction in acid gases (e.g., hydrochloric acid), 78 percent in sulfur dioxide and 5 percent in nitrogen oxides, according to EPA data. The agency also estimates that the cement kiln rules will prevent up to 2,500 premature deaths each year and will avert a host of health problems, including cases of aggravated asthma, heart attacks, chronic bronchitis, and upper and lower respiratory symptoms. The reduced emissions from the rules will also result in fewer emergency room visits, hospital admissions, lost work days and lost productivity. While there will be costs associated with the implementation of the rules, the benefits will far outweigh them. EPA estimates that the regulations will yield $7 billion to $18 billion annually in benefits, which is enormous when compared to the estimated $350 million to $950 million in annual costs that EPA has calculated. If the amendment is adopted, EPA will be unable to proceed with the implementation of this rule during this fiscal year. As it is, the rules for this source category are already several years overdue, during which time public health has suffered as a result of exposure to unnecessarily high emissions. Further delaying the public health protection from these rules would be detrimental to our nation's residents. NACAA urges you to allow the NESHAPs and NSPS for Portland Cement plants to proceed as adopted and to provide the public with the cleaner and more healthful air it deserves. Please do not support Amendment No. 165 to H.R. 1. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, G. Vinson Hellwig, Michigan Chair, NACAA Air Toxics Committee.

Mr. WAXMAN. Absolutely not. I don't agree with that.

Mr. WAXMAN. I don't know enough to answer that question.

Mr. WAXMAN. I should trust your analysis more than the Environmental Protection Agency, OMB, the people in the air pollution control business?

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

Mr. WAXMAN. I thank you very much for recognizing me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the proposal. This amendment is bad policy. It would overturn a decision by the FCC enacted last December that would protect the Internet from those who might interfere with the ability of consumers to access whatever they want. Mr. Upton simply said a minute ago a lot of jobs are created by the Internet. Well, that is why we shouldn't stop the FCC. The most vibrant sector of our economy today is our Internet economy. U.S. companies like Google, Facebook, Amazon and E-Bay are leading the world in innovation; and they all urge the FCC to protect and open the Internet because commonsense baseline rules are critical to ensuring that the Internet remains a key engine of economic growth, innovation and global competitiveness. In fact, these high-tech and high-growth companies urged the FCC to adopt even stronger rules than it did. Contrary to the hyperventilated rhetoric from the majority, the FCC rules do not regulate the Internet. They do not grant the government the power to turn off the Internet. They do not determine what content is appropriate for users to access. Their goal is just the opposite. They prevent Internet gatekeepers, like Verizon, from deciding what content their subscribers can access. But the FCC rules were a very light touch regulation, and it is notable that AT&T, Comcast and Time Warner, three of the Nation's largest network operators, support these rules. As AT&T's CEO stated, ``We didn't get everything we wanted. I wanted no regulation. But we ended at a place where we have a line of sight and we know we can commit to investments.'' Major Wall Street investment analysts have concluded that the FCC's open Internet order removed any regulatory overhang for telecom and cable companies and reflected a light touch version of regulation that will not hinder innovation or growth. Now, what is at stake here is those who are offering this amendment to stop the FCC from doing what it has ordered want the people who carry the Internet able to restrict the access for consumers and creators who have used the Internet for such great success. That would be a serious mistake. We had a broad, diverse coalition of more than 120 organizations, including public interest groups, religious leaders, technology associations, labor unions, Internet companies and small businesses who wrote to us strongly opposing the Republican efforts to block the open Internet regulations. They argue that overturning the regulations would eliminate the FCC's ability to protect innovation, speech and commerce on broadband platforms. If we stop the FCC from regulating, well, then we leave the status quo, which means that those who deliver the Internet into our home can start regulating it themselves. The American people, I think, would be against this. They want us to stop this re-litigation of FCC's sensible open Internet rules. We should be working together on a bipartisan solution to expand broadband access and create tomorrow's economic opportunities. The FCC took landmark action to preserve the open Internet. Let us not roll back the clock and stop those regulations by the FCC to preserve the open Internet from being put into place. I urge opposition to this effort. And I want to say that this does not save any money. This proposal will not cut costs. This is only about policy, and the high-tech high-growth companies have urged the FCC to adopt these rules. We shouldn't use the appropriations process to make this effort to stop the FCC from doing its job. I yield back my time.

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

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to be recognized in opposition to this Carter amendment. This has nothing to do with saving costs. This has nothing to do with lowering the deficit. What this amendment would do is to stop EPA from going ahead and enforcing a rule that they put into place dealing with mercury toxic emissions. It took them 10 years to get that rule in place. And why did they finally adopt a rule? Because mercury is a powerful neurotoxin that causes learning disabilities and developmental damage, especially in young children. Every year an estimated 60,000 American newborn babies are threatened with a diminished ability to think and learn due to exposure to mercury pollution. Now we have to balance things out. We want to protect the cement manufacturers. We want them to be profitable. But if we're going to let them continue with that mercury pollution, we're going to have 60,000 kids that are going to be born with neurological problems. Are we a Congress that cares about life? Well, I think we want both--the industry to prosper and to stop the poisoning of our kids. So we asked the Environmental Protection Agency to adopt a rule. They met with the industry people. They put out a proposed rule. They got comments to their rule. They finally put it into place. And now we would be asked under this amendment to stop it. As the gentleman from Texas suggests, go back and renegotiate. Well, there's nothing to renegotiate. There's no rule in place. The National Association of Clean Air Agencies wrote a letter, which I'm going to make part of the record at the appropriate time, and they said, Please oppose this amendment. They said, While there will be costs associated with the implementation of the rules, the benefits will far outweigh them. EPA estimates that the regulations will yield $7 billion to $18 billion annually in benefits, which is enormous when compared to the estimated $350 million to $950 million in annual costs that EPA has calculated. If you want to do it by dollars and cents, this is a real good deal for the American people. But if you want to do it for something even more important--life of babies and children. We're talking about keeping them from being poisoned. These standards that are being put in place will limit toxic mercury pollution from cement kilns, the third largest source of mercury pollution in America. These standards will reduce mercury pollution from cement kilns by 92 percent. They also reduce other hazardous air pollutants, such as lead, arsenic, dioxins and benzene which are known to cause cancer, birth defects and other catastrophic health consequences. Reducing these toxic chemicals also reduces the fine particulate pollution, or soot, which interferes with heart and lung function and triggers strokes, heart attacks and lung disease. The Carter amendment would stop all of these efforts to protect the public health. And the only reason we've heard is that they fear there's going to be a cost to the cement industry. Yes, there will be. But that cost can be handled. And we've always heard throughout the debate on environmental laws that the costs are going to outweigh the benefits. A rigorous economic analysis was conducted and the economic analysis shows that the benefits of this regulation far outweighed the costs to the industry. Let's not put corporate profits ahead of our children. I urge my colleagues not to agree to this amendment. They're common sense, they'll save money, they'll create jobs, and they'll save lives. Let me just tell you further what EPA estimated what these standards will prevent. Up to 2,500 premature deaths; 1,000 emergency room visits; 1,500 heart attacks; 17,000 cases of aggravated asthma; 32,000 cases of upper and lower respiratory symptoms. We're talking about reducing health costs that could amount to $18 billion every year and I think that's a great savings for the American people. I urge opposition to the Carter amendment.

Mr. WAXMAN. Will the gentlelady yield?

Mr. WAXMAN. If some of the pollution is coming from offshore, from China, which is true, that's no excuse for us to allow more pollution to come from the sources here in the United States. And simply asking businesses to lower their emission levels does not mean we push them to do business overseas. American businesses have thrived even with environmental regulation.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. WAXMAN. A number of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the Republican side of the aisle, have said they don't want abortion to be funded and, therefore, they're going to vote for the Pence amendment. But they believe that people ought to be able to get the clinical and preventive services that a group like Planned Parenthood would otherwise make available to them. Well, look. Plant Planned Parenthood does not pay for anybody's abortion using taxpayers' dollars. That is clearly in the law. It's covered by the Hart amendment. If Planned Parenthood has abortion services, it is completely separate. It is not only separate from family planning services and others for which they get government funding, they have to keep separate records. It's a completely different operation. So the Pence amendment is trying to strike the funds under the health and human services programs for the services that Planned Parenthood as an organization would provide for them. Now it's not just family planning funds. It's all Federal programs, including Medicaid and the community health centers program. This organization serves 15 percent of all women in need of contraceptive services in the U.S., and for millions of women, it is their primary health care provider, the place they go to not only for planning services but basic preventive health services such as cancer screenings. Take that money away from them, they're not going to be able to serve the women who need those services. So where will those people go? Are they going to go to the community health centers? Well, this particular funding bill takes out a billion dollars from the community health centers. Where else can they go? Are they going to look to the Medicaid program? One of the entitlements that the Republicans most want to savage is Medicaid. Then where can they go? Are they going to go to the exchange in a couple of years that will be available under the Affordable Care Act? Of course not. The Republicans are trying to repeal that law. What will be the consequences? The consequences will not diminish the number of abortions. The consequences will be to deny women, and men, who may go to a clinic or to Planned Parenthood in order to get basic medical services. I think this is a serious mistake. If you're against abortion, be against abortion. But don't take it out on Planned Parenthood because they serve abortion clients in a separate operation. That's like saying I never want to pay for any services provided by a doctor, even though it's not abortion services. I don't want that doctor getting any money for contraceptive services. I don't want that doctor to be paid if he's providing screening for venereal disease. I don't want that doctor to be paid for any other service because he might also, without your funds being used, provide abortion services. When you look at this carefully, this is trying to punish Planned Parenthood. But the ones who get punished are the people who won't be able to get the family planning services and the preventive screening services that Planned Parenthood regularly provides, and they won't be the only provider for many of these women because they have nowhere else to go if they can't afford to go see a private doctor and pay for it. I thought it was amazing to hear an argument that was made on the House floor that one Member didn't like money to go to Planned Parenthood because they're competing with for-profit abortion services. I just was stunned by that argument. I didn't know what it meant, except perhaps they'd like to have the private, for-profit abortion services be able to provide the services instead of Planned Parenthood. Whatever happens there is another issue, because Federal dollars, taxpayers' money, will not be used for it. But taxpayers' dollars should be used for title X family planning, for Medicaid, for community health centers, for health screening, for preventive health services, and that's why the Pence amendment should be defeated. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN

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

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this deeply flawed Republican funding resolution. The bill is a reckless and sweeping attack on the public health and environmental protections that keep our air safe to breathe and our water safe to drink. One of the most egregious assaults on public health and the environment in the legislation is section 1746. This provision guts the Clean Air Act and bars the Environmental Protection Agency from addressing the grave threat to public health and the environment posed by carbon pollution, and it does so while destroying thousands of jobs. The science is clear and the evidence is overwhelming. According to the National Academy of Sciences and the premier scientific organizations of all the world's major economies, carbon pollution is changing the climate and endangering the environment. But section 1746 prohibits EPA from taking commonsense, reasonable measures to address this threat. The Clean Air Act currently requires that new source plants, new power plants, new oil refineries, and other major new sources of carbon emissions take steps to reduce their carbon emissions. This requirement makes sense because it is easier for facilities to plan for emission reductions before construction than to install retrofits afterwards. EPA says sources should be able to comply just by being energy efficient. Section 1746 would prevent EPA from implementing this commonsense requirement. EPA has also indicated it plans to set minimum Federal standards for the two largest sources of carbon pollution: power plants and oil refineries. This section would prevent EPA from even proposing these standards. Instead of gutting the Clean Air Act, the top priority for this Congress should be getting Americans back to work, but section 1746 does exactly the opposite. It imposes a de facto construction ban on many areas of the country. The Clean Air Act requires the largest new or expanding facilities to obtain carbon pollution permits before they begin construction. The Republican bill doesn't change this legal requirement to have a permit, but it does prevent EPA from actually issuing the needed permits. This affects every jurisdiction where EPA issues permits. This construction ban would apply to all or part of 13 States, including my own State of California. It would block dozens of major projects, including power plants, refineries, cement kilns, and large manufacturing plants. The result would be the loss of thousands of construction jobs and permanent jobs at these facilities. Members have different views about how to reduce carbon pollution, but we should all agree that a multi-State construction ban is a terrible idea. The Republican bill has other damaging impacts. The bill blocks requirements to reduce carbon pollution emissions that Congress established in the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments and expanded a few years ago. The bill even blocks successful voluntary programs that partner with industry like Energy Star, and it blocks the renewable fuel standard that Congress established 4 years ago which aims to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. This is a sweeping, reckless, and irresponsible bill. I urge all my colleagues to oppose it. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Our highest priority should be to put America back to work. We need jobs, investment, and growth; but that's not what we're doing in Congress. Yesterday the Energy and Commerce Committee held one hearing attacking women's reproductive rights and another promoting legislation to roll back the Clean Air Act. And today we're spending all day debating a meaningless resolution no one disagrees with. None of this will create any jobs or make our economy stronger. The resolution we're debating directs several committees, including my committee, the Committee on Energy and Commerce, to conduct oversight of government regulations. Well, I support oversight and reforming unnecessary or outdated regulations. That's part of our job. We don't need a resolution to do our job. But we need to be honest with American families. Our economy is not in a recession because of regulations. We are in a recession because Wall Street ran amok and Federal regulators were asleep on the job. It is too little regulation of Wall Street--not overregulation--that caused our economic woes. And that's why this resolution is going to do nothing to get our economy growing again. I ask my colleagues to remember the collapse of Wall Street in 2008. This meltdown in the financial markets threw our economy into the deepest recession since the Great Depression. Millions of Americans lost their jobs, and it cost U.S. taxpayers billions of dollars to bail out AIG and Wall Street banks. The cause wasn't regulation. As Alan Greenspan, the head of the Federal Reserve Board, testified before me and other members of the Oversight Committee, he had ``made a mistake'' in promoting deregulation. He said he had ``found a flaw'' in his free- market ideology and was in ``a state of shocked disbelief.'' The Deepwater Horizon oil spill wreaked havoc on the economies of the Gulf States. It wasn't caused by too little oversight and too much regulation. It was because there wasn't enough oversight and regulation. Thousands of jobs were lost in the gulf because Deepwater Horizon was not subject to proper safety and environmental regulations. No one disagrees that ongoing oversight of regulations is necessary. In his address to the Chamber of Commerce on Monday, President Obama said that Federal agencies are already conducting a comprehensive review of existing regulations to identify and fix those that are outdated and unnecessary. As the President said, we should design regulations intelligently and ``get rid of regulations that have outlived their usefulness or don't work.'' But this isn't going to create new jobs, reduce our deficit, or make the middle class stronger. To grow our economy, we need to invest in new clean energy jobs; we need to bring broadband connections to all parts of America; and we need to continue to make health care more efficient. That's what we should be talking about on the floor today. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette), and I ask unanimous consent that she be allowed to control the time for the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 359, which repeals nearly 40 years of reforms in how our Presidential election campaigns are funded. It is a great disservice to our democracy and to fundamental democratic processes. As with the House vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act, this sweeping measure has been brought up for a vote without any hearing, without any testimony, without any documentation, and without any opportunity for those who support current law to state their case before the American people. The new Republican leadership pledged to be open, transparent, and fair in the workings of the House. These good principles are simply being ignored, once again. I don't believe the American electorate wants to have even more corporate influence in Presidential elections. During the midterm election season, there was no call to scrap our public finance system, but there was a real sense of concern and a vigorous debate about the huge amounts of corporate funds that entered the campaign season as a result of the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United last year. H.R. 359 would undermine processes that have been an essential part of our electoral system since the Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1974 were enacted in the wake of the greatest corruption scandal in modern American history, Watergate. Watergate was marked, in significant measure, by revelations of massive amounts of cash from undisclosed sources being funneled into our presidential election campaigns and expended without proper accountability. Congress responded with significant reforms that restored the integrity of our Presidential elections. For decades there has been a consensus that public funding of Presidential campaigns is preferable to special interest funding. Every Republican and Democratic Presidential nominee from 1976 through 2008, except for Barack Obama, used the public finance system for their general election campaigns. The system is contingent on support from private donors; there is a match of public funds, which are donated on a purely voluntary basis by Americans who want to promote honest elections. The system makes campaigns possible for candidates who initially do not have access to substantial funding. It encourages the broadest participation by candidates across the political spectrum. This strengthens our democracy and the vibrancy of political campaigns, thereby serving the interest of the American people. Proposals have been introduced in recent Congresses to strengthen and improve the public finance system, which has had difficulty providing sufficient funding to meet the almost uncontrollable escalation in the costs of running for President. We should be considering legislation today to update and improve it, not to destroy it. Although the public finance system runs on voluntary contributions, the Republican leadership has promised that getting rid of it will control the deficit. In reality it will only further lard Presidential campaigns with special interest money. Like our vote on the Affordable Care Act last week, the Republicans can vote to repeal our landmark post-Watergate reforms without offering anything to replace them. Their indifference toward the public interest is a threat to the integrity of future elections. I urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution. The certain result of what the Republican leadership in the House is proposing to do will be to saddle millions of Americans with higher health insurance costs, less coverage, less competition, and higher costs on small businesses and employers across the country. This resolution is both unnecessary and a grave error in public policy. It is unnecessary because, by the resolution's very terms, the Affordable Care Act is responsive to each and every one of the objectives outlined in the resolution for responsible health legislation. For example: We are instructed to write changes to existing law that will ``foster economic growth and private sector job creation.'' In the wake of enactment of the Affordable Care Act, health is among the fastest growing employment sectors in the United States, with a third of the job growth in the entire country last year--over 340,000 jobs in health care and social assistance. The Affordable Care Act is a jobs creation law and repeal is a jobs loss bill. The resolution calls for changes in law that ``lower health care premiums through increased competition and choice.'' This is exactly what consumers will get from the health exchanges in the Affordable Care Act--more competition and choice than they have today. The resolution calls for laws that will ``increase the number of insured Americans.'' The Affordable Care Act already does that--by some 32 million Americans. Consumers can keep their health plans--just as called for in the resolution. The law encourages reform of the medical liability system--just as called for in the resolution. The resolution calls for those with pre-existing conditions to have access to affordable health coverage. The Affordable Care Act prohibits insurance coverage from being cut off for pre-existing conditions. That is why the Affordable Care Act already meets all the public policy goals outlined in this resolution. This resolution is also a grave error in public policy. It is important to appreciate what has been has excluded from the instructions to our committees for changes in the health laws. As I stated have stated earlier in the debate on repeal of the Affordable Care Act, under the directions to us in this resolution, there will be: No prohibition on discrimination against over 100 million Americans with pre-existing conditions; No prohibition on insurance companies cancelling your coverage when you get sick; No prohibition on lifetime caps and annual limits; No required coverage for young adults on their parents' policies; No assistance to seniors struggling to afford the cost of drugs in the donut hole; No free annual check-ups and preventive care in Medicare; No tax credits for families and small businesses to pay for health insurance. All of these reforms are in the law today. None of these reforms will survive if this resolution passes and the committees of jurisdiction follow this terribly flawed blueprint. I strongly oppose this resolution and urge its defeat.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. I strongly oppose this effort to repeal the health care bill. Millions of Americans are already benefiting from this legislation: insurers have stopped discriminating against sick children; seniors are saving money on prescription drugs; and small businesses are receiving billions of dollars in tax credits to provide health care coverage. Repeal will roll back these benefits. The repeal bill reminds me of the story of Robin Hood, but in reverse. Repeal will take essential health benefits from millions of struggling American families and give new powers and profits to the insurance companies. If we repeal health reform, there will be no prohibition on discrimination against over 100 million Americans with preexisting conditions; no prohibition on insurance companies canceling your coverage when you get sick; no prohibition on lifetime caps and annual limits; no required coverage for young adults on their parents' policies; no assistance to seniors struggling to afford the cost of drugs in the doughnut hole; no free annual checkups and preventive care in Medicare; no tax credits for families and small businesses to pay for health insurance. These changes will affect every congressional district in the country. My staff has been analyzing what the impacts of repeal will be in each district. These are now available on our Web site. They tell a compelling story. We have a new Member on our committee from West Virginia. In his district, repeal will mean increasing prescription drug costs for 12,000 seniors and taking new preventive care benefits from over 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries. We have another new Member on our committee from New Hampshire. In his district, repeal will mean eliminating tax credits for nearly 17,000 small businesses. In my own district, repeal would mean over 50,000 constituents would lose protections against rescissions. And these aren't just statistics. Behind every number is a real person with real problems, like diabetes or breast cancer or a child with special needs. Repeal is a boon for the insurance companies but an enormous setback for American families. If we pass this bill, the insurance companies can raise their rates, discriminate against millions of Americans with preexisting conditions, and cut off coverage when someone becomes sick. There are many reasons to oppose repeal. The health reform bill is creating thousands of new jobs. It will cut the deficit by curbing the growth of health care costs, saving taxpayers over a trillion dollars. This is why I urge Members to vote ``no'' on this legislation. If there's a change the Republicans want to make, let them propose it. But don't throw it all out the window and say they're going to do all these things we've already done. I urge Members to oppose this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the control of the balance of the time of the Energy and Commerce Committee to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey who chaired the Health Subcommittee in the last Congress and who has done a great deal to advance this legislation, Mr. Frank Pallone.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. I rise in strong support, Madam Speaker, of H.R. 847, the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010. I want to thank the chairman of the Health Subcommittee, Frank Pallone, as well as my colleagues from New York on the committee, Eliot Engel and Anthony Weiner, for their relentless work on behalf of this legislation, as well as Representatives Maloney and Nadler, and the whole New York City delegation, who were tireless in their support of this bill. This is an important piece of legislation that will attempt to provide the services to first responders and community residents who developed illness as a result of their exposure to the massive toxic dust cloud that blanketed Lower Manhattan after the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001. I strongly urge all Members to support this legislation. H.R. 847, was reported by the Energy and Commerce Committee with bipartisan support on May 25 by a vote of 33-12. The House passed H.R. 847 on September 29; the bill received bipartisan support from 268 Members. The version of before us this afternoon is one that has been amended by the Senate in order to obtain bipartisan support in that Chamber. Like the House-passed version, the Senate version is fully paid for and will not increase the deficit. It fully complies with all pay-go rules. The World Trade Center Health Program currently provides services to first responders and community residents who developed illnesses as a result of their exposure to the massive toxic dust cloud that blanketed lower Manhattan after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. The current program is not authorized. The House-passed bill authorized the Health Program through FY 2019 at a federal funding level of $3.2 billion. The federal government will pay 90 percent of the cost, while New York City will pay 10 percent. The Senate amendment reduces the authorization period to FY 2015 and federal funding to $1.5 billion. New York City would still be required to pay 10 percent of the costs. The Senate amendment makes a number of other changes in the Health Program. It prohibits the Secretary of HHS from using NIOSH to administer payments to Centers of Excellence and other participating providers. It clarifies that Centers of Excellence delivering services to responders and community residents will have to provide claims-level data to the Health Program Administrator. It clarifies the Centers of Excellence should be paid for the costs of carrying out the program that are not otherwise reimbursable, such as outreach, data collection, social services, and development of treatment protocols. It authorizes the Program Administrator to contract with the VA to provide services to responders enrolled in the national program through its facilities, but only if the VA chooses to do so. Finally, the Senate amendment directs the GAO to conduct studies on various aspects of the Health Program and to report to the Committees of jurisdiction prior to July 1, 2011. That is the date on which Secretary of HHS and the WTC Administrator are responsible for implementing the Health Program. In the likely event that the GAO is unable to complete all of its work by that date, the Program will nonetheless begin furnishing services to responders and survivors. The Administration supports this bill for the same reason that all of us should: it is the right thing to do. The first responders were there for us on 9-11. We should be there for them today. I urge my colleagues to pass this bill and send it on to the President for signature.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) yielding to me. And I want to commend you, Representative DeLauro, Congressmen Pallone and Stupak, Mr. Barton and Mr. Shimkus, and former Representative Deal for the work on this legislation. For a third time, today the House considers legislation that will dramatically improve the safety of our Nation's food supply. The House first passed its bill in July 2009 on a strong bipartisan vote with 283 supporters. On November 30 of this year, the Senate passed the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act on a strong bipartisan basis, by a vote of 73- 25. That bill contained some constitutional defects that needed to be fixed. So on Sunday night, the Senate again passed a corrected version of the bill by voice vote. Congress has demonstrated that food safety is a bipartisan issue. Food-borne illness outbreaks can strike each and every one of us. In recent years, foods we never would have imagined to be unsafe, everything from spinach to peanut butter, have sickened an untold number of Americans. It is time, once and for all, to enact this legislation. There is no time for any further delay. FDA needs a modern set of authorities to deal with the effects of our increasingly globalized food supply. This legislation will give FDA the tools and resources it needs to better police the safety of the foods we eat every day. The bill makes significant improvements throughout the food chain, from the farm to the dinner table. The bill will require farmers to comply with science-based standards for safe production and harvesting. Companies that process or package foods will be required to implement preventive systems to stop outbreaks before they occur. Importers will have to demonstrate that the food they bring into the country is safe. And the bill strengthens FDA enforcement authorities, giving FDA the ability to order a food recall when companies refuse to voluntarily do so. Many of us in the House would agree that our bill was stronger. We also would likely agree that it is regrettable that there was not time for a conference to allow us to make some improvements in the Senate bill. But this is an opportunity that will not come again for a long time. There is no question that this is a good bill and that it will provide FDA with some critical new authorities. It will fundamentally shift our food safety oversight system to one that is preventive in nature as opposed to reactive. We simply must take this chance to make our food supply safer. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 2751.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendments to the bill (H.R. 5809) to amend the Controlled Substances Act to provide for take-back disposal of controlled substances in certain instances, and for other purposes.

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material in the Record.

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 5809, an act to reauthorize the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act, or DERA. Since its enactment in 2005, DERA has provided significant public health benefits, improved our national energy security, and helped create jobs. Today's bill will authorize the continuation of this successful program for 2012 through 2016. It also slightly modifies the program to improve its effectiveness and administration. Diesel engines are the workhorses of the economy. They are used to take students to school, to build roads and buildings, and to transport goods over roads, rails, and waterways. Diesel engines have long had a reputation for being dirty, but that reputation is changing. New diesel engines and vehicles must meet tough standards set by the Environmental Protection Agency. However, there are millions of older diesel engines now in use that have very high emissions, causing a number of public health and environmental problems, including premature death. These engines have long useful lives, up to 25 years, so absent incentives to clean them up, we will be suffering from their pollution for a long time. DERA is designed to use voluntary partnership approaches to reduce pollution from these existing engines and vehicles. DERA authorizes EPA and the States to use loans and grants to help clean up existing dirty diesel engines and vehicles. Today's bill would also permit EPA to run rebate programs for clean diesel technology. All 50 States and D.C. have established DERA programs. Today's bill would allow Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands to do the same. DERA projects have included retrofitting schoolbuses to reduce children's exposure to harmful air pollution, repowering locomotives used at seaports to save fuel and reduce emissions in the surrounding neighborhoods, and replacing high-emitting construction equipment. Clean diesel funding has also been used to help small- and medium-sized trucking companies afford clean technologies. I was pleased to see EPA's recent action stating a preference for programs for truckers that couple fuel conservation technology with emissions reduction technologies, including anti-idling technologies, over programs that only have fuel conservation provisions. This approach is consistent with the DERA program as amended by this bill. DERA is delivering numerous benefits. EPA estimates that every $1 spent on clean diesel projects generates up to $13 of public health benefits. DERA also helps reduce our dependence on foreign oil. From projects funded in just the first year of the program, EPA estimates that the country will save more than 3.2 million gallons of fuel annually. This means that truckers and other diesel operators will spend $8 million less on fuel, and reduce their CO2 emissions by 35,600 tons per year. DERA also helps create jobs in the U.S. For every $500 million spent on diesel retrofit technology, DERA saves or creates on average almost 10,000 jobs. It also has facilitated the development of emerging cleaner technologies. Given these benefits, it is not surprising that on November 9 a coalition of 538 companies and organizations representing manufacturing and business interests, environmental and health-based organizations, faith and labor groups, and State and local agencies wrote to House members to urge reauthorization of the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act, DERA. This reauthorization of DERA has strong bipartisan support, which has been a hallmark during its enactment and annually during the appropriations process. Despite the significant benefits from DERA, today's bill sets the authorization level for 2012 through 2016 at half the level of that for 2007 through 2011. The authorizing level is being reduced so that it is more in line with the levels that are normally appropriated for this program. It is not an indication that this Congress believes that the need for the program has decreased nor is it an indication that appropriated levels should be decreased. The Diesel Emissions Reduction Act has been a successful program that has widespread support and has produced significant benefits. I hope you will join me today in voting to reauthorize it. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, we are paid until the end of the year. We are here to do our job. The American people said to work things out on a bipartisan basis. That is what we have done with this legislation. I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to my good friend from southern California (Ms. Richardson).