Henry Waxman

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased at this time to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner), an important member of our committee and a leader in health care reform.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the 2 minutes that has been reserved for the Education and Labor Committee debate time in opposition to the Republican substitute be transferred to the Energy and Commerce Committee's time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. WAXMAN. We are ready to close, so use your time. Use it or lose it.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, to close the debate on the Democratic side, I yield the balance of my time to the dean of the House, to the lead author of the underlying bill and to a man who has fought longer for national health insurance than anyone in this institution. I yield the balance of my time to Representative John Dingell from the State of Michigan.

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

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk be authorized to make technical corrections in the engrossment of H.R. 3962, to include corrections in spelling, punctuation, section numbering and cross-referencing, and the insertion of appropriate headings.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a minute to thank the staff that worked so hard on the health bill. We could not have brought this legislation before the House today without the hard work and the professional standards of the House Legislative Counsel and the Congressional Budget Office. The staffs of these two offices spent many evenings and weekends under relentless deadline pressure helping us to solve the many technical challenges we faced in putting this bill together. I particularly want to thank the outstanding staff of House Legislative Counsel who worked under the tireless direction of Deputy Legislative Counsel Ed Grossman: Jessica Shapiro, Megan Renfrew, Warren Burke, Henry Christrup, Larry Johnson, and Wade Ballou. I also want to thank the talented staff of the Congressional Budget Office: Bob Sunshine, Pete Fontaine, Holly Harvey, Phil Ellis, Tom Bradley, and Kate Massey. Finally, I want to thank the staffs of three committees that worked on this bill: Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, and Education and Labor. Their expertise was remarkable, and their efforts--on both the Democratic and Republican side--Herculean. In particular, I want to commend my committee Health staff, who worked under the direction of the incomparable Karen Nelson: Alvin Banks, Steve Cha, Bobby Clark, Brian Cohen, Alli Corr, Sarah Despres, Jack Ebeler, Tim Gronniger, Ruth Katz, Purvee Kempf, Anne Morris, Andy Schneider, Camille Sealy, Naomi Seiler, and Tim Westmoreland. I yield at this time to the distinguished chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. WAXMAN. Reclaiming my time, I also want to single out Virgil Miller and Katie Campbell, who worked on Mr. Dingell's staff and worked very closely with all of us.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2868, the Chemical and Water Security Act of 2009. This legislation resolves some important unfinished business from 9/11. We learned on that terrible day how determined terrorists can turn our critical assets into weapons of mass destruction. Despite that wake-up call, we've been slow and inconsistent in securing our Nation's chemical facilities and water systems from terrorist attack. Passing this legislation will enhance our Homeland Security, improve the safety of our workforce, and help protect our public health. First, the bill strengthens security at America's chemical plants by providing permanent authority for the Department of Homeland Security's chemical facility antiterrorism standard program. This legislation would establish a number of security enhancements, including requiring, for the very first time, that covered chemical facilities assess whether there are any safer chemical processes or technologies that they can adopt that would reduce the consequences of a terrorist attack against that facility. This bill would also authorize the Secretary of Homeland Security, under certain circumstances, to require that the riskiest chemical facilities adopt the safer chemical processes or technologies when necessary to reduce the likelihood that the facility will be attacked. The bill also provides chemical facilities with an appeals process if they disagree with the DHS Secretary's determination. We crafted this provision in close consultation with considerable input from the largest chemical industry association, the American Chemistry Council. Second, the bill establishes minimum security standards at drinking water and wastewater facilities, closing what the Bush and Obama administrations agree is a critical security gap. Under this bill, for the first time, covered water systems that use a certain amount of dangerous chemicals will have to assess whether they can switch to safer chemicals or processes to protect their employees, their neighbors, and the communities they serve. We worked closely with the water sector to craft a bill that meets several important policy goals--clean and safe water and homeland security. I am pleased that the associations representing drinking water and wastewater utilities have endorsed the bill. These endorsing associations include the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, the American Public Works Association, the National Association of Clean Water Agencies, and the Association of California Water Agencies. Third, this bill gives chemical facility workers much-needed protection by ensuring that chemical facilities and water systems involve their workers in developing plans to address any vulnerability to terrorist attack. Not only are workers the first line of defense against any attack, they would also be the first injured in the event of a chemical release. That's why this legislation is strongly supported by labor organizations, including the United Steelworkers, United Auto Workers, Communications Workers of America, and the International Chemical Workers Union Council. And finally, this bill improves current law by creating a citizen enforcement tool that citizens can use to protect their communities when DHS fails to perform its nondiscretionary duties. It also allows States to take additional action to protect their communities from terrorists if they find it to be necessary. This bill is the product of careful compromise, and it was drafted in close consultation with key stakeholders from government, the chemical industry, the water utilities, labor and other groups. That's why it has been endorsed by a broad coalition of labor and environmental organizations in addition to many water industry associations. I am proud of the balance we have struck. I urge all Members to support H.R. 2868 to close these critical security gaps once and for all. I rise in strong support of H.R. 2868, ``The Chemical and Water Security Act of 2009.'' This legislation resolves some important unfinished business from 9/ 11. We learned on that terrible day how determined terrorists can turn our critical assets into weapons of mass destruction. Despite that wake-up call, we've been slow and inconsistent in securing our nation's chemical facilities and water systems from terrorist attack. Passing this legislation will enhance our homeland security, improve the safety of our workforce, and help protect our public health. First, the bill strengthens security at America's chemical plants by providing permanent authority for the Department of Homeland Security's Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards program. This legislation would establish a number of security enhancements including requiring for the first time that covered chemical facilities assess whether there are any safer chemicals, processes, or technologies that they can adopt which would reduce the consequences of a terrorist attack against the facility. This bill will also authorize the Secretary of Homeland Security, under certain circumstances, to require the riskiest chemical facilities to adopt the safer chemicals, processes, or technologies when necessary to reduce the likelihood that the facility will be attacked. The bill also provides chemical facilities with an appeals process if they disagree with the DHS Secretary's determination. We crafted this provision in close consultation, and with considerable input from, the largest chemical industry association, the American Chemistry Council. Second, the bill establishes minimum security standards at drinking water and wastewater facilities, closing what both the Bush and Obama Administrations agree is a ``critical security gap.'' Under this bill, for the first time, covered water systems that use a certain amount of dangerous chemicals will have to assess whether they can switch to safer chemicals or processes, to protect their employees, their neighbors, and the community they serve. We worked closely with the water sector to craft a bill that meets several important policy goals--clean and safe water and homeland security. I'm pleased that associations representing drinking water and wastewater utilities have endorsed the bill. These endorsing associations include: The Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies; The American Public Works Association; The National Association of Clean Water Agencies; and The Association of California Water Agencies. Third, this bill gives chemical facility workers much-needed protection, by ensuring that chemical facilities and water systems involve their workers in developing plans to address any vulnerability to terrorist attack. Not only are workers the first line of defense against any attack, they also would be the first injured in the event of a chemical release. That's why this legislation is strongly supported by labor organizations, including: The United Steelworkers; The United Auto Workers; The Communications Workers of America; and The International Chemical Workers Union Council. And finally, this bill improves current law by creating a citizen enforcement tool that citizens can use to protect their community when DHS fails to perform its nondiscretionary duties. It also allows states to take additional action to protect their communities from terrorists if they find it to be necessary. This bill is the product of careful compromise, and was drafted in close consultation with key stakeholders from government, the chemical industry, the water utilities, labor and other groups. That's why it has been endorsed by a broad coalition of labor and environmental organizations in addition to many water industry associations. I am proud of the balance we have struck. I urge all Members to support H.R. 2868 to close these critical security gaps once and for all. Finally, I'd like to highlight two aspects of the bill. Information Protection Each title of H.R. 2868 contains a section related to the protection of sensitive security information that could be detrimental to facility security if disclosed. The bill requires the Secretary of Homeland Security and the EPA Administrator to develop rules for the appropriate sharing of protected information with those who have a need to know it. The bill also establishes criminal penalties for any person who discloses this protected information in knowing violation of the rules. The bill defines the types of information that is considered ``protected'' as well as the types of information that the bill's sponsors intended to exclude from that definition. The bill states that protected information does not include ``information that is required to be made publicly available under any other provision of law.'' Laws such as the Clean Air Act, the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act or the Occupational Safety and Health Act require disclosure of important safety information to regulators, workers and often the public at large. An individual who discloses information in compliance with one of these other statutes should not face criminal penalties even if that information is also contained in a document such as a security vulnerability assessment that is protected under the rules established by Secretary of Homeland Security and the EPA Administrator. Drinking Water Facilities and Site Security Plans The Committee on Energy and Commerce reported H.R. 3258 favorably on October 21, 2009. H.R. 3258, now Title II of H.R. 2868, requires each covered water system to assess the system's vulnerability to a range of intentional acts. The vulnerability assessment must include a review of vulnerable assets within the fenceline of the system, such as water treatment and pre-treatment facilities and chemical storage units, as well as the off-site water distribution system. Each covered water system also must complete a site security plan that addresses the vulnerabilities identified in the assessment. With regard to the on- site vulnerabilities, the Committee intends for each covered water system to develop a site security plan that addresses those vulnerabilities using layered security measures to meet risk-based performance standards developed by EPA. With regard to any off-site vulnerabilities identified by the covered water system, the Committee expects EPA to recognize that it would be impractical for the covered water system to guarantee the physical protection of the system's entire network of pipes, conveyances, and other usage points that comprise its distribution system. For example, it would be impracticable for the covered water system to control access to all fire hydrants or residential connections within its distribution system or all pipes that deliver its water. Similarly, the Committee does not expect for the covered water system to describe employees' roles and responsibilities for securing the distribution system beyond the fenceline of the system as part of its site security plan, unless the system has assigned one or more employees such responsibilities. The covered water system, however, may use funds granted by EPA to address off-site vulnerabilities, such as tamper- proofing of manhole covers, fire hydrants, and valve boxes.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 867, a resolution standing against further action on the ``Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict,'' also known as the ``Goldstone Report.'' From its inception, the Gaza report was rooted in an orchestrated campaign to delegitimize Israel. It was commissioned by the U.N. Human Rights Council, an institution obsessed with condemning Israel. In his response to the Goldstone Report, Michael Posner, the Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, noted that the UNHRC has ordered more reports and held more special sessions on Israel than another country in the world. The Council has also passed more resolutions against Israel than for all 191 other U.N. members combined and Israel is the only country that is a permanent agenda item at Council meetings. Those who seek to elevate the Goldstone Report recommendations are advancing a campaign to demonize Israel's soldiers, denounce its democratic institutions, and undermine efforts to move the peace process forward. They feed into a disturbing new wave of anti-Israel discrimination including Arab League efforts to invigorate the Arab boycott against Israel and a recent Bahraini parliament vote to make it illegal for the Kingdom's citizens to have contact with Israelis. Some opponents of this resolution have suggested that its motivation is to bury the incidents and allegations recorded in the report. This assessment is grossly wrong. Israel is already investigating and prosecuting reported incidents in Gaza and the United States has encouraged the goverment to expand and intensify its efforts. The integrity of the Israeli military and the Israeli judicial system requires that all credible allegations are thoroughly examined. What is buried by the Goldstone Report is the suffering Palestinians in Gaza experience every day as hostages to an extremist terror campaign fought by Hamas and fueled by Iran. What is largely ignored is the deliberate efforts of Hamas to launch attacks from civilian areas and the extraordinary efforts Israel took to avoid civilian casualties. Others have suggested that Israel's cooperation with the ``fact finding mission'' could have avoided its biased outcome. The reality is that the mission was fated by a sweeping mandate, the inclusion of a judge with admitted prejudice against Israel, and reliance on testimony by individuals largely chosen and at times intimidated by Hamas officials. As a result, the report calls for the International Criminal Court to consider charges against Israeli military leaders and politicians and supports universal jurisdiction for countries to bring charges against Israeli soldiers and diplomats wherever they travel. Yet, Hamas leaders and the terrorist state sponsors who sparked the Gaza conflict with thousands of rockets face no sanction at all. While President Obama works to achieve a breakthrough in the peace process, continued action on the Goldstone Report only pushes the parties farther apart. As Israel begins to implement unprecedented policies to constrain future settlement growth, the virulent atmosphere generated by the Goldstone Report can only serve to poison hope for progress. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote for H. Res. 867. I commend the Obama administration for its continued work to oppose any endorsement or further consideration of the report and its recommendations.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, the premise of health insurance is that if you buy a policy, and then get sick, your insurance company will protect you. But what we heard at the committee's hearing last week on underinsurance--and what we have been hearing throughout our investigations of the private insurance industry--is that that is not how the system works. In reality, we have learned, private health insurance companies have become expert at collecting premiums and then, denying claims. Our witnesses on Thursday were normal people who had done the right thing and had bought health insurance. But each of them found that, when they needed coverage the most, their policies came up short. We heard from Nathan Wilkes, who had an insurance plan through his employer. Then, his son, Thomas, was born with hemophilia, an expensive and life-long blood-clotting disorder. Thomas is six years old now, and thankfully, his condition is well-managed. But, he has already exceeded the million-dollar lifetime caps of two separate insurance plans, and the Wilkes' current plan has a $6 million cap that Thomas is sure to meet soon. As Mr. Wilkes put it, the insurance companies have turned the hourglass over on Thomas again--this time with just a little more sand. Catherine Howard testified about how, as a healthy 29-year-old, she bought a basic policy that she thought would protect her if she fell while snowboarding. When it was discovered that she had breast cancer, Ms. Howard found out that her plan asked her to pay 30% of the cost of treatments, like radiation, that she needed to survive. Though she feels lucky to be alive, Ms. Howard's coinsurance payments put her into deep debt that she continues to pay off to this day. David Null bought what he thought was a catastrophic coverage plan. But when catastrophe struck--and his daughter, Tatum, needed a liver transplant--he found out that the plan had a lifetime cap of $25,000. The Nulls were saved from crushing medical bills only after Mr. Null's small company turned away business so that the family's income was low enough to qualify for Medicaid, which covered the surgery retroactively. These stories are not unique. In 2007, there were 25 million underinsured Americans, up 60% from 2003. Underinsurance often causes debilitating medical debts, and a recent study found that 62% of all personal bankruptcies are medically related. In recent years, insurance companies have been asking Americans to pay more, but are providing them with less. In the last decade, the average cost of a family's premium has risen 131%, but average wages have risen less than a third of that. At the same time, insurance companies are imposing more limits on what their policies will provide. Some policies, like the Nulls' or the Wilkes', have caps that limit the amount the insurer will pay in a lifetime, or a year. Other policies have expensive co-insurance provisions, like Ms. Howard's, that overwhelm the policyholder. And caps and coinsurance are just some of the problems people face in the private insurance market. This past summer, our committee held a hearing on the health insurance companies' practice of rescission. This is when insurance companies attempt to cut costs by cancelling policies after people get sick and make claims. The companies go back through their policyholders' application forms, looking for any tiny mistake or omission for an excuse to cancel the policy and deny coverage. Rescission is unconscionable because it cuts policyholders loose when they need coverage the most. But even worse, when we had insurance company executives sworn in before our committee, we asked them if they would commit to ending the practice of rescission except in cases where the policyholder had intentionally hidden a health condition. The executives refused to make that promise. I think that speaks to the insurance companies' motivations. Just yesterday, we held a hearing on the small group insurance market. We found that insurance companies sometimes raise small businesses' premiums an astronomical amount--up to 250% in a year-- based on factors like the ages and genders of employees, if a single employee had made a large claim the previous year, or if the business had too few employees. What is so disappointing in our examination of these issues is that, even where small business owners want to do the right thing for their employees, and provide them with access to quality health care via insurance, industry practices and policies today punish their desire to provide proper benefits for their employees and their families. This is wrong, and this is why we need health insurance reform in America. Indeed, what all of this shows is that the private insurance system is broken. The way insurance is supposed to work is for the insurance companies to spread risk among their policyholders so that, while most people will remain healthy and cost little, the company can pay when other policyholders get sick. But schemes like rescission, preexisting condition exclusions, lifetime caps, and the way companies are gaming the small group market show that private insurers are not interested in spreading their risk. Rather, they want no risk at all. The companies are happy to insure healthy people who will pay premiums and make few claims, but they want to exclude, rescind, or purge anyone whose health care costs they might actually have to cover. Well, that's not how health care works. The House reform bill, H.R. 3200, would restore the proper balance to the health care system. It would end rescission, preexisting condition exclusions, and lifetime caps. It would place limits on out-of-pocket costs and create a required basic set of benefits so that people know what they are signing up for, and so that they will get what they need. And it would prohibit the problems small businesses face in terms of discrimination based on gender and group size, and in terms of lack of choice. At Thursday's hearing on underinsurance, Mr. Null told the committee that to him, the biggest tragedy that came out of his daughter Tatum's liver failure was not his family's resulting financial hardship. It was that, under the current system, Tatum's preexisting condition limits her future. He said, ``When she asks me what she should be when she grows up, I can't tell her the same thing that you probably tell your kids. I can't tell her she can be anything she wants, and you guys need to fix that for me.'' On Thursday, I looked at Tatum and told her that if we enact health care reform legislation, neither her future, nor anyone else's in America, will be hindered by an inability to get health insurance. Please join me in that promise.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, swift passage of this bill is absolutely essential to the nearly half a million people served by the Ryan White program. Representatives Pallone, Deal, Barton, and I worked with the Senate in a bipartisan and bicameral fashion to develop the bill before us today. We didn't see eye-to-eye on everything, but we all agreed that the HIV/AIDS epidemic isn't a partisan issue and that the Ryan White program must continue. This bill contains improvements that will strengthen and grow the program over the next 4 years. I would like to thank the administration, as well as the over 300 HIV/AIDS organizations who developed consensus recommendations that immensely helped the process. The Congressional Black, Hispanic, and Asian Pacific American Caucuses also provided vitally important input. I would like to thank all of the House staff that worked on the bill: Camille Sealy, Elana Leventhal, Naomi Seiler, Aarti Shah, Melissa Bartlett, Blake Fulenwider, and Ryan Long. Finally, I would like to thank Chairman Pallone, Ranking Member Deal and Ranking Member Barton for their work on this important piece of legislation. I urge all Members to support it.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, twenty-five years ago, President Ronald Reagan signed the landmark Waxman-Hatch law, delivering generic drug competition to the American marketplace. Since that time, generic drugs have provided millions of American consumers with access to low-cost, yet safe and effective drugs. In the last decade alone, generics have saved consumers, businesses, and state and federal governments $734 billion. American consumers fill more than six of every ten prescriptions with safe and effective generic medicines. During these difficult economic times, generic pharmaceuticals are critical to assuring that patients continue to have access to lifesaving medicines. Making sure that Americans have access to, and can afford, life-saving medicines has been one of my chief goals as a Member of Congress, and I am proud of the success of generic competition in helping achieve that goal. Since passage of the Hatch-Waxman law, we have seen a shift in the pharmaceutical marketplace to permit greater competition and innovation--a win-win for purchasers and manufacturers alike. As a result, millions of Americans have access to safe and affordable generic medicines and our health care bill is much lower than it otherwise would have been. There is still much more we can do to increase savings from generic drugs. We should not only celebrate the 25th anniversary of Hatch-Waxman, but we should use it as motivation to ensure there is real generic competition for biotech medications. Let us show Americans that we understand that they deserve access to affordable medicine and give them a pathway that provides reasonable incentives for innovation, but does not pose unnecessary barriers to competition.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, this is a simple bill. It corrects a minor formulaic problem with the calculation of Medicare premiums for some beneficiaries, not all but just some. And we are faced with a very short time in which to act. The administration has told us that the Social Security agency needs to know what premium to program into their system by or about October 1. This legislation deals with the situation where, under current law, some seniors will face unusually steep premium increases next year. Beneficiaries who pay $96 today could face premiums of $110 or even $120 per month next year if we don't act today. The reason for that is that there's no increase in the cost of living under their Social Security. But for these few Medicare beneficiaries, there would be an increase in their part B premium passed on to them. About three-quarters of beneficiaries face this steep premium increase. The legislation would protect the other one-quarter, over 11 million beneficiaries. It will help new Medicare enrollees, older civil service retirees, and others who don't receive Social Security benefits and State government benefits. It would not add to the deficit. It would be financed by reductions in other Medicare spending. It's an important bill. It's not the most important bill that we're going to face in the health care area. That's coming up very soon. But for those of us who have always supported the Medicare program and have been concerned about the Medicare beneficiaries, we see that we've been successful from most of them not having to face this problem. But we need to correct this problem that will be faced by a good number of people and to make sure that it does not happen to them. I would have liked to have a COLA for all Social Security beneficiaries, but at least don't let them see a reduction in Social Security to pay for an increase in Medicare premiums.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, a series of food-borne disease outbreaks in spinach, peanuts, and peppers, to name a few, have not only just sickened and killed American consumers, they've laid bare the unacceptable gaps in our food safety laws. And today, the House will act to close those gaps, give FDA new authorities, new tools, and a new source of funding to carry out this vital mission. This legislation contains policy solutions that come from many Members on both sides of the aisle. It's largely based on legislation introduced by Chairman Emeritus John Dingell, Subcommittee Chairmen Pallone and Stupak. These three Members have played an instrumental role in this legislation, as have Representatives Sutton and DeGette on our committee. In addition, I want to single out Chairwoman Rosa DeLauro who introduced the landmark legislation which contributed in a substantial way to this bill. I want to thank our full committee Ranking Member Barton and subcommittee Ranking Members Shimkus and Deal for their contributions to the legislation as well, and Chairman Peterson and Chairman Rangel who gave suggestions to make the bill a better bill. The coalition of food safety groups worked with the Members to develop and maintain the strong, public health protections in this bill. I think that they deserve an enormous amount of recognition, but I want to thank Rachel Sher of my staff for her thoughtful work and countless hours on this bill. Other key staff on the effort include Eric Flamm, Virgil Miller, Elana Leventhal, and Erika Orloff, as well as several individuals from the minority staff, including Ryan Long, Clay Alspach, Blake Fulenwider, and Chris Sarley. And finally, I want to thank President Obama and his administration for their contributions to this legislation. The safety of the food supply is a critical issue, and this legislation will give the administration the tools they need to keep this food supply safe. I urge a ``yes'' vote for the bill.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following exchange of of letters: House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means, Washington, DC, July 27, 2009. Hon. Henry A. Waxman, Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: The Committee on Ways and Means applauds your efforts to improve and ensure the security and safety of food offered for consumption and consumed in the United States and appreciates your willingness to work with us to satisfactorily resolve a number of trade-related issues falling within our jurisdiction. Such issues include the regulation of importers and brokers, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) implementation and enforcement of U.S. laws, and compliance with U.S. international trade obligations. In particular, we appreciate your efforts to address our concerns with respect to sections 204 and 205 of your bill, H.R. 2749, the Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009, regarding the registration of importers and brokers, respectively. In light of the agreed upon changes, the Committee will forgo action on this bill and will not oppose its consideration on the Suspension Calendar. These changes ensure that the application of the Food Safety Enhancement Act on the registration of importers is carried out in consultation with CBP, taking into consideration time needed for CBP and importers to make necessary adjustments to comply with the new requirements of the Act, and that the registration of customs brokers is consistent with and does not extend beyond current requirements set forth in current law, including granting new authority to any other agency to regulate customs brokers. This is being done with the understanding that it does not in any way prejudice the Committee with respect to the appointment of conferees or the full exercise of its jurisdictional prerogatives on this bill or similar legislation in the future. The Committee intends to look for opportunities to improve the safety of imported food and the safety of imported goods overall, in accordance with the existing statutory and regulatory scheme under CBP. We look forward to soliciting your suggestions for reform. Sincerely, Charles B. Rangel, Chairman.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, today, as we discuss comprehensive energy and climate legislation, our focus is on how we can lower the carbon footprint of electricity generation. As we move to a clean energy future, however, the country still needs to make progress in reducing sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury emissions, air pollutants that cause acid rain, ground-level ozone, particulate matter pollution, and mercury contamination. In developing their strategies to reduce carbon dioxide, electricity generators will still need to take into account the need to reduce emissions of these conventional air pollutants. For many years, Congressman McHugh has worked to tackle the problems created by emissions of such pollutants. In particular, he has shown great leadership in his work to address acid rain and mercury pollution from power plants, as demonstrated by his bill H.R. 1841, the findings of which persuasively demonstrate the case for a strong control program for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and mercury emissions from power plants. Putting in place strategies to reduce carbon dioxide emissions will also help address these problems. Mr. McHugh's amendment to the American Clean Energy and Security Act does important work by making this link explicit. It directs EPA to study what effects strategies and technologies that will reduce emissions of carbon dioxide will have on emissions of conventional pollutants like SOx, NOx, and mercury. Further understanding of this interaction between carbon control strategies and the reduction of criteria pollutants will be of clear benefit to policymakers, air quality planners, and the power sector. Adopting approaches that reduce both types of pollutants would represent a major step forward towards cleaner coal use, and Mr. McHugh's amendment will result in important information on what we know now, and what steps should be taken next, in order to achieve this objective. I also wish to address the purpose of the intellectual property protection provisions in Title IV, Subtitle D, which are to ensure that funding for international climate change mitigation promotes robust compliance with and enforcement of intellectual property rights for clean technology. The intent of the provisions is to safeguard intellectual property rights in order to support investment in the research and development necessary to design and deploy new technologies. For the purposes of this section, clean technologies are any technologies or services relating to the qualifying activities enumerated in section 445. Section 446 would prohibit bilateral assistance for the benefit of qualifying activities that would undermine compliance with and enforcement of intellectual property rights for clean technology as provided in the World Trade Organization's Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) and applicable bilateral Free Trade Agreements. With regard to multilateral assistance, the provision directs the President to seek to ensure that any climate change mitigation assistance disbursed through a multilateral framework not be permitted for any activity that on its own or in connection to a related activity would undermine intellectual property rights for clean technology, as provided in TRIPS. The objective is to prevent funds from being spent to support the export of a technology where the underlying patent or other intellectual property rights would be undermined as a result of the project. The objective is also to ensure that decisions about individual projects also scrutinize whether related activities have undermined intellectual property rights for clean technology. For example, a funding decision for a project involving the export of wind technology should take into account whether there is a history of intellectual property violations in similar projects involving solar energy technology or technology to support capture and sequestration of carbon dioxide emissions. An annual assessment of compliance with and enforcement of intellectual property rights would be made by the interagency group established in section 443. Madam Speaker, I also wish to address some unwarranted concerns that have been raised by misreadings of provisions in H.R. 2454. In new Section 811 of the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to publish an inventory of categories of stationary sources that includes each source category that is responsible for at least 10 percent of the uncapped methane emissions in 2005. The provision goes on to provide that the inventory shall not include sources of enteric fermentation. Thus, emissions from enteric fermentation shall be included in the calculation of uncapped methane emissions in 2005, but enteric fermentation shall be not listed as a source category on the inventory. I would also like to clear up some confusion on the covered entity definition in new section 700(13)(C) of the Clean Air Act. Under this provision, an entity that produces or imports any of the specified greenhouse gases for sale or distribution in interstate commerce in the specified amount is a covered entity. It has been suggested that somehow this provision might be interpreted so that beef producers would be covered because they produce beef for sale or distribution in interstate commerce because, in the production of beef, they produce manure as a byproduct that is not intended for sale or distribution in interstate commerce. This would be an impermissible reading of section 700(13)(C). In addition, I would like to clarify that, contrary to claims made by the opponents of the building efficiency provisions, the building labeling provisions of Section 204 establish a voluntary program and are not mandatory requirements. This program is voluntary for the states to choose to implement once EPA produces a prototype label, and it is voluntary for building owners to utilize subject to state policy. Its sole purpose is to provide information to consumers about building energy performance. It is also limited to new construction. There is nothing in the bill, and never has been, that would provide a basis for assertions that homeowners would be required to pay for an expensive audit and upgrades to a home before being allowed to sell it. I know that those outdoor lighting manufacturers, efficiency groups, and lighting consumer interests who are involved in the ongoing negotiations to reach new consensus efficiency standards for outdoor lighting may be concerned about amendments to the bill's language with regard to those standards. Their efforts provided the basis for the outdoor lighting provisions in the legislation as introduced, and I remain supportive of their ongoing negotiations. It's my hope and expectation that their process will yield a negotiated standard with as much consensus as possible that will deliver substantial energy savings from outdoor lighting products on a realistic schedule. Such a result could be very influential as Congress continues to consider this matter.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize the tremendous contributions Pope Barrow has made to the House of Representatives and to the country in his service with the Office of Legislative Counsel. If you watch the floor debate long enough, you will hear Members of Congress correctly noting that hardworking staff never get enough credit around here. Well, there is another group of professionals that often get even less credit for their good work, and that's the staff at the Office of the Legislative Counsel. Pope Barrow exemplifies the finest characteristics of the men and women who actually draft much of the legislation that becomes law: hardworking, good-natured, and committed to professional standards. Pope has had a hand in crafting virtually every major energy and environmental initiative that has moved through the Committee on Energy and Commerce in over three decades of my service in the Congress. From clean air to safe drinking water, Pope has worked to draft the laws that the American people count on Congress to get right. He's also worked on laws that are less in the public spotlight, such as laws that regulate our energy markets, laws that require white-water releases from hydroelectric projects. No matter what the subject of his work, Pope has demonstrated a rare and invaluable ability to refine complicated concepts into comprehensible law. Pope also has an unusual way of handling the pressures of the job. When Congress was considering the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, he would leave the office to kayak down the Potomac River where it gets steep, forceful and challenging through the narrow Mather Gorge at Great Falls just outside of Washington, D.C. I guess he thought, if he could survive that, he could survive anything John Dingell and I might throw at him. Moving major legislation is a huge undertaking. It can take months of negotiation. Tensions can get high working under tight deadlines with major consequences at stake. Throughout these times, Pope kept an even keel, and could lighten the mood with a wacky but amazingly apt comparison or metaphor. It made him a pleasure to work with and a legend around here. In that spirit, I'd call Pope the Clark Kent of legislative drafters--mild mannered but delivering a superhuman effort and performance. Pope displayed immense dedication to his work even up to the very end of his tenure. This spring, when we marked up the energy bill, Pope worked hard to help the committee meet the goal of reporting the bill by the Memorial Day recess. He would work late into the night, but would come in even earlier in the morning. With Pope's retirement, the House is losing an extraordinary public servant. I know it will be odd for me to look down at the counsel's table during our next energy or environmental markup and not see Pope Barrow there. His contributions have been many, and his presence will be sorely missed. I want to join all of those in wishing him the best in his next adventures.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, pursuant to H. Res. 587, I call up the bill (H.R. 2454) to create clean-energy jobs, achieve energy independence, reduce global warming pollution and transition to a clean-energy economy, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the legislation under consideration.

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Today we are taking a decisive and historic action to promote America's energy security and to create millions of clean-energy jobs that will drive our economic recovery and long-term growth. This bill, when enacted into law, will break our dependence on foreign oil, make our Nation the world leader in clean-energy jobs and technology, and cut global warming pollution. As a result of these new policy settings, we will create millions of clean-energy jobs for America and restore our technological leadership in clean energy. We are also protecting consumers. The bill tackles big problems that have been ignored for far too long. It proposes solutions that will transform our economic and clean- air environment. There is a remarkable coalition behind this bill. Electric utilities support the bill. Manufacturers support the bill. Farmers support the bill, and so do the Nation's leading environmental organizations, labor unions, and faith-based groups. There are many Members responsible for this remarkable coalition. On the Energy and Commerce Committee, John Dingell helped forge compromises with the auto industry. Rick Boucher developed ideas that will provide a future for coal. Mike Doyle addressed the concerns of the steel industry and other trade-vulnerable industries. The chairman of the Ways and Means Committee worked with us to make sure that the interest of low-income families are fully protected. And the chairman of the Agriculture Committee made sure the legislation addresses the concerns of farmers and makes them part of our energy future. The need to act is clear and urgent. There is a national security imperative to act. This legislation at long last begins to break our addiction to imported foreign oil and put us on a path to true energy security. There is a scientific imperative to act. The evidence on global warming, on the consequences of carbon emission is overwhelming, and we have based our bill on the science. And there is a moral imperative to act. We have obligations to protect and preserve the environment for our children and the generations that follow. And there is an economic imperative to act. This legislation is an enormous jobs bill for America. It will promote investment and growth for decades ahead, creating jobs for the new-energy economy of the 21st century. People in industry have told us that as soon as this legislation becomes law, we will find billions of dollars invested in infrastructure over the next 5 years. We can see an incredible lost opportunity if we don't act now. There are amazing developing new technological centers around the U.S., and we can see those jobs going overseas and that technological superiority going overseas as well. And this bill is affordable. Contrary to what we will hear from our friends on the other side of the aisle, the Congressional Budget Office found that this legislation will cost households an average of only $175 in 2020, less than 50 cents a day. EPA's analysis put the cost at 22 to 30 cents a day, less than the cost of a single postage stamp, while lowering utility bills by 7 percent. This bill is a tremendous opportunity to prevent a dangerous threat while creating millions of new jobs and driving economic growth. It will end our dependence on foreign oil and keep us more secure. This bill will drive a new era of sustainable growth and innovation, and I urge all Members to support it. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC, June 24, 2009. Hon. Henry A. Waxman, Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Waxman: This is to advise you that, as a result of your having consulted with us on provisions in H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, that fall within the rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary, we are able to agree to waive seeking any formal referral of the bill, in order that it may proceed without delay to the House floor for consideration. The Judiciary Committee takes this action with the understanding that by forgoing further consideration of H.R. 2454 at this time, we do not waive any jurisdiction over subject matter contained in this or similar legislation. We reserve the right to seek appointment of an appropriate number of conferees to any House-Senate conference involving this important legislation, and request your support if such a request is made. I would appreciate your including this letter in the Congressional Record during consideration of the bill on the House floor. Thank you for your attention to our requests, and for the cooperative relationship between our two committees. Sincerely, John Conyers, Jr. Chairman.

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, at this time I am delighted to yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment as well as the Select Committee on Global Warming. He has played the fundamental role of shepherding this bill through our committee and working to get it to the floor today. I yield to Mr. Markey 3 minutes.

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I want to yield now to the gentleman who had been the chairman of the Energy Subcommittee on our full committee last Congress and who was instrumental in getting the first draft of the legislation that we worked off, but more importantly, as a knowledgeable individual of this area and from a constituency that has a special concern about the problems, he was able to negotiate with us so that we could reach some of the accommodations in this legislation that has made it a much better bill. I yield, with great admiration, 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher). (Mr. BOUCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)