Henry Waxman

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am not prepared to close. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, if you look at what is happening with this bill and this amendment, if both were passed, combined, coal and natural gas power plants emit a third of all carbon pollution in this country. They are responsible for virtually all carbon pollution from the electricity sector. This amendment would ensure that industry can keep building new fossil fuel power plants without modern pollution controls, whether they be natural gas or coal. So, in effect, if this amendment is agreed to, and the underlying bill is adopted, it would say, in effect, we are not going to control any of the carbon pollution coming from any power plant. Now, if we don't control the pollution from any power plant, and we let them emit whatever pollution they choose to emit, and it is obviously cheaper to pollute than to stop polluting, we will, in effect, condemn us to all that pollution which happens to be--let me repeat this again--it happens to be a third of the carbon pollution in this country today. That would mean there is no chance in hell that we will ever reduce the pollution in this country that we can reduce that is adding to climate change pollution, in addition to all the other pollutants coming from around the world. Those pollutants don't go away; they accumulate in the atmosphere, and when they accumulate in the atmosphere, we see the impact on the climate. At some point, we are going to have so many pollutants in the atmosphere from carbon that scientists are telling us we won't be able to do anything. We won't be able to continue to contribute to that pollution without making it impossible to do anything about climate change. We have a chance to do something about climate change now. We should not lose that chance by adopting this amendment and the underlying bill. So, I would urge that we vote against the amendment and the underlying bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. WAXMAN. I don't know how to oppose this amendment because it doesn't seem to make the underlying bill any worse. The problem is this: The bill requires that, before a new standard for coal-powered plants is set, there has to be six coal-powered plants in this country that are already using this technology; and we have argued: Well, that is not going to happen because no one is going to use the technology if their competitors aren't going to use the technology. And if there is technology outside of this country that is being used successfully, EPA can't rely on that. Mrs. Capps' amendment would have changed that. That is still going to be voted on later. Mrs. Capito's amendment says EPA could consider technologies developed in other countries, but only if those technologies are also being broadly adopted in the United States, as I understand it. Well, in fact, that will lead to the exact same problem as we have in the underlying bill. Under both the amendment and the bill, EPA would still be prevented from proposing a standard based on cleaner coal technologies, such as ultrasupercritical boilers, which can reduce pollution by improving efficiency. That kind of technology is already being used in more than 100 ultracritical coal units generating power in China, but the United States has only installed one. Well, we can't let that one and all the others that are being used in China allow the EPA to set a standard that would require that technology. Under the bill and the amendment, that one U.S. plant won't be sufficient for EPA to set a new standard. So even if this amendment passes, EPA will still be prohibited from setting pollution control standards based on effective pollution controls that have been deployed overseas. Well, I guess if you are going to pretend that climate change isn't happening, why not pretend that clean air technologies used in other countries don't exist, either? So I can't oppose--I am not going to ask for a rollcall vote. I am not going to even--I will even vote against your amendment. I am not going to vote for it. But it seems to me the amendment has a problem that the underlying bill already has, and it doesn't fix anything. So if people want to vote for this amendment, vote for the amendment because it doesn't make anything any different than the problems that I see with the underlying bill. With those comments, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment so I can make a few points about this.

Mr. WAXMAN. I didn't speak on the last amendment. I didn't think that last amendment did anything worse than the bill already does. This amendment modifies a section of the underlying bill which requires EPA to report to Congress on the economic impacts of any regulation of carbon pollution from existing fossil fuel-fired power plants. Well, this reporting requirement is largely meaningless because EPA already does this analysis, and if this bill were adopted, EPA wouldn't issue any rules to trigger the reporting requirement anyway. But this amendment would add more items to be considered in EPA's report on a rule regulating carbon pollution from existing power plants. For example, this bill would require EPA to look at the rule's potential effects on capital, operation, and maintenance costs for pollution control equipment. But that is exactly what EPA already does for every significant rule that requires pollution controls. The amendment also requires EPA to analyze how our particular pollution control requirement may affect the global economic competitiveness of the United States. I don't think that makes any sense to add this because it is questionable whether we even have reliable economic models to make this assessment. If this bill were adopted, EPA wouldn't be doing this report anyway, so it doesn't really matter. I am not going to object to the amendment, and I am not going to vote for the amendment, but it won't have any effect because the underlying bill is going to prevent the EPA from acting whether it is a new power plant or existing power plants. But I did want to single out this provision which I think is unreasonable to expect EPA to be able to do this global economic competitiveness analysis. That is not what EPA does. They are not in the position to do it, and to add that requirement, I think, is a very bad precedent. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN

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

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, the underlying bill prevents EPA from setting a standard or requirements for new--new coal-powered plants. Instead of telling a new coal-powered plant they have to use technology to reduce their carbon emissions, this bill says they can't require that of new plants, unless new plants are already using technology to reduce emissions. Well, okay, if they are already using technology, we can say everybody ought to use that technology; but then the underlying bill goes further and says: Well, not only are they using technology that accomplishes the goal, but there has got to be six plants represented all over the country that are achieving the standard using technologies, and then EPA can consider a standard for new power plants. This is like the belts and suspenders. They can't look at foreign technology. They have to use six plants that are using technology. Of course, one would ask: Why would anybody spend money to use technology to reduce carbon pollution if they are not required to do it? It costs money. So it is so unlikely that they are ever going to be able to set a new standard at the Environmental Protection Agency, given the underlying bill. But the bill also says, if there are six plants that are using technology, they better not use technology that has been funded by the government. Well, why not? That is what the government does. We provide DOE grants to have demonstrations of new technologies. That is what the underlying bill says. If they are achieving reductions in carbon pollution because it is involving government funds, we are not going to count those. Well, now, we have the Latta amendment that says: Well, wait a second. What if it is funds for demonstrations that are not using Federal dollars, but local dollars? Well, fine. I don't have any objection to that, but I don't know why we would say Federal dollars can't be used to demonstrate technologies that are successful, so the Latta amendment narrows the underlying bill, but really doesn't accomplish much. Why, I would ask: Would we want to say that the Department of Energy, using taxpayer dollars for projects to find new and better ways to improve air quality for the American people, should not be used by EPA to set a standard for future power plants? These projects funded by the Federal Government help companies figure out how to reduce air pollution more effectively and at a lower cost. The whole point is to develop technologies that can be applied across the industry to reduce air pollution. So if the Federal Government funds those new technologies and they are successful, we are not going to let a standard be based on that; but if the State funds the development of the new technologies that accomplish these goals, oh, we can use that, but they better be part of six, and they better fit this underlying standard--this underlying requirement that there be six in different parts of the country and on and on and on. Well, I don't object to this amendment. I don't see what the amendment particularly does to make the bill any better. It doesn't solve any particular problem that I see, but I just want to point out how offensive this underlying bill is to not let EPA set standards for new plants when we know that technologies can reduce the carbon pollution. But we are not going to look at it for real, unless they meet a higher standard, which is six plants; but they better not be using government-funded technologies from the Federal Government, which would be the case if this amendment is adopted. So I just want to make these points rhetorically because I think people ought to understand how offensive this bill is. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire who closes the debate on this amendment?

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

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, President Obama reached out to the Congress, to the Republican majority of this House, and he said: Let's work on ideas that could help us deal with this problem of climate change. But he also said he wanted to make it very clear that, if the Republicans won't act because this House majority won't do anything to address climate change, he will. The bill we are considering today shows that the Republicans' plan on climate change is to give up hope. Their plan is to let our children and grandchildren suffer the effects of climate change without lifting a finger to protect them; worse, the Republicans' plan is to stop any meaningful action to slow climate change. I think this position is indefensible. Today's bill would amend the Clean Air Act to ensure that coal-fired power plants are able to pollute indefinitely with impunity. This bill would condition EPA's authority on conditions that simply can never be met or at least not as long as it is cheaper to dump pollution into the air rather than clean it up. Republicans complain they don't like EPA's approach. Well, what is their plan to address climate change? For years, Democratic Members have shown that we are willing to consider any suggestion to reduce carbon pollution and to slow climate change. We could put a price on carbon. We could put a limit on carbon pollution. We could support the development of clean energy. In the bill that I authored with now-Senator Markey, we dedicated $60 billion to deploy carbon capture and sequestration technology on new coal power plants. But what Congress can't do is simply say no to everything, no to a price on carbon, no to a limit on carbon, no to regulation on carbon. What my amendment suggests is, if they don't want EPA to act to reduce the pollution from carbon coming from coal-burning power plants, we are saying: All right, address this problem, make sure we have some other alternative that will work. Because if they don't have an alternative that will work, in effect, the Republicans are saying: We are not going to do anything, either we don't believe there is a problem called climate change, the scientists are all lying to us--of course, we will never let them come before our committee and testify because they will only lie to us about it--the science is wrong, we don't have to worry about it. We have heard over and over again from Mr. Whitfield that 96 percent of the problem is naturally occurring carbon. Well, naturally occurring carbon is balanced; it is absorbed by photosynthesis and other processes. But that 4 percent is upsetting the balance, and that balance that is being upset is a threat to this planet. It is a threat to our atmosphere. It is a threat to our Nation when we see hurricanes, floods, droughts, all these climate events that we hear about every night in the evening news. So what is their alternative? If they don't want coal-burning power plants regulated, give us an alternative that will reduce that 4 percent that is upsetting the balance. I would suggest that they are telling us they have no alternative whatsoever. I don't think that is an adequate answer to what many experts believe is the leading threat to our survival on this planet. I would urge that we adopt this amendment. If they don't like what EPA is doing, tell us their plan. If they have other ideas for reducing carbon pollution to prevent catastrophic climate change, let's hear them; but if they don't, they should step aside and let the President lead. I urge support for this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, my amendment doesn't stop EPA from acting if we can get an alternative, an alternative that would reduce the carbon pollution to the same level the EPA is proposing. My friend and colleague, Mr. Whitfield, said the President, if left unchecked, would make these commitments. Well, President George H. W. Bush made a commitment on behalf of this country that we would try to achieve reduction of carbon to 1990 levels. If the Republicans want to do something on their own and not let the President do it, tell us how you can accomplish these goals. If you don't want to achieve these goals, it is either because you don't believe we need to achieve them or you are not willing to do anything about the problem. I urge support for the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the life of Hy Ramm who recently passed away. Hy was a longtime friend, an accomplished business man and an asset to our community. Hy was born in Liverpool, England and as a child he witnessed first- hand, the Nazi bombings during WWII. He was forced to grow up quickly, and the horrible things he saw during the war gave him a level of maturity and determination that I have rarely seen in others. After immigrating to Los Angeles with his family following the war, with only a fourth grade education, Hy quickly established himself as a force to be reckoned with. He worked hard to support his family and quickly rose to the level of Vice President of Dosimeter. Hy was determined to achieve success for himself and his family but always made time to give back to others. Even after his retirement, Hy worked with the Silicon Valley Coalition of Retired Executives (SCORE) and dedicated countless hours to mentoring young entrepreneurs. Hy had a great passion for politics and public affairs and was actively involved in numerous campaigns over the years. I had the great honor of meeting Hy in the 1960s during his term as President of the Beverly Hills Democrats and he was truly an inspiration. Hy is survived by his wife and two children, daughter-in-law Jenifer, son-in-law Warren, and grandchildren Meredith, Annabella, Kira, Griffin and Amelia. He will be missed by all who knew him. I ask that my colleagues join me in celebrating the remarkable life and tremendous contributions of Hy Ramm. Our community owes Hy a debt of gratitude for his tremendous accomplishments and philanthropic efforts and he will not be forgotten.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 1791, the ``Medical Preparedness Allowable Use Act'', but I have serious concerns about this legislation and its overlap with the policies appropriately established in the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act (PAHPA). Of course, we all agree that it is important for states, territories, tribes, and high-risk urban areas to be prepared for possible acts of terrorism. And we also agree that medical preparedness and related activities are an important part of this. However, I worry that this bill may result in duplicative and uncoordinated efforts across the government. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is the lead federal entity on the public health and medical response to public health emergencies and incidents, including bioterrorist attacks. Specifically, this bill conflicts with HHS's authority under PAHPA. Legislation reauthorizing the PAHPA authorities at HHS was passed on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis by the House and Senate and signed into law just last March. HHS already undertakes a number of activities related to enhancing medical preparedness and medical surge capacity in States and cities. The Department also maintains a stockpile of countermeasures and other pharmaceutical supplies for terrorist attacks and other public health emergencies--which is managed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in consultation with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). I believe the use of DHS grant funds for medical preparedness activities authorized in H.R. 1791 without any consultation requirement or acknowledgement of HHS's role in public health and medical response efforts is short-sighted. It has the potential to undermine HHS's leadership and expertise on this important issue and impede a unified federal response to terrorist attacks. If my colleagues believe that there should be enhanced support of medical preparedness activities, I hope that we can work together to find a way to ensure coordination of efforts and preserve HHS's important role.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. I thank you for yielding to me. Madam Speaker, existing law very clearly states no taxpayers' money can fund abortions--that is already the law--with the exception of rape, incest, or to save a woman's life. The Republicans are coming in and saying we have got to make sure that no taxpayer's money is going to be used to pay for any insurance that might provide abortions. The law--the Affordable Care Act--provides that, if you get an insurance policy on the exchange, you can choose a policy that does not provide abortion coverage, but if you choose a policy that has abortion coverage, that portion of the policy must be paid by the purchaser, not the government. So this is, in fact, like all we do around here, which is propaganda. It is politics. The Republicans try to make people believe that taxpayers' dollars are being used to pay for abortions. It is not true. This bill is bad in substance. It is an unfortunate bill that tries to interfere with the ability of people to buy with their own money a policy that may cover abortion services, which is a legal medical service.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, supporters of this legislation claim that it is simply an effort to get more information about how the Affordable Care Act is being implemented, but it is not really that. It is an effort to slow down the implementation of the new law by drowning the Department of Health and Human Services in red tape. They want enrollment information, but this week, they got enrollment information from the administration. That enrollment information showed that 2.2 million Americans have signed up for private coverage. They want demographic information. HHS has given them demographic information. HHS is going to release all of the information that they are asking for every month, but the Republicans say, ``Oh, that is not good enough. We want it every week.'' They want more than what otherwise might be available to them because they want to know some things that I can't understand why they would want to know them. They want to know the ZIP Codes of everybody who has signed up. They want to know what the details are of a chat between somebody who is asking a question on the Web site and what answers he got. I can't understand why that is important. They want to know what transpired in the call centers. In other words, they want to know what somebody said in a call center. Is it their business to know what questions are asked in a call center? They want a list of the people who are the adjusters and the brokers. There are thousands of them around the country, so there is no purpose to knowing that. They are not accredited by the government. If they are by the States, it is up to each State. They could ask each State that information. Let me put this in perspective. If anybody had a bill asking the private sector to come up with reports every single week on information that they could wait a couple of more weeks to get, it would be looked at as just straight harassment, government red tape, bureaucracy that is intruding into the business for no purpose. That is what this bill is all about. They want to intrude in a government agency. I guess, if they have a bureaucratic intrusion and the harassment of a government agency, it is okay, but if it were to happen to a private sector business, it would be inappropriate. If we asked polluters this information, you could get the information. If you asked them to give you the information every week, why do you need it every week? I ask the Republicans: Why do they need this every week if they are going to get it every month? It is obvious. This law is working, and they don't want to come again to the floor and ask for its repeal because people have insurance. Millions of people now have insurance. If they want to repeal the law, they are going to take that insurance away from them. They want to continue to say: What are they hiding? What are they hiding that they are not giving you on a weekly schedule but that they are giving you on a monthly schedule? Absolutely nothing that is significant. The enrollment reports we already have indicate that over 6 million people have signed up for coverage since October 1. The Web site can handle 80,000 simultaneous users, and it has been stable even though there was a surge of enrollment in late December. The law is working. Republicans don't want to hear these facts. They don't want to know about it, but they think they should get everybody at HHS--maybe even have them hire more people--to report to them every week so they can still not recognize that there is good news in what is actually happening. This is a goofy bill--it is absolutely unnecessary--and I urge my colleagues to vote against it.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. The previous speaker in this debate said that we don't know how many times there was a breach of security on the health care Web site. Well, we do know how many breaches of security there were, how many successful attacks there were--zero. There have been no successful breaches of healthcare.gov. Mr. Speaker, since October 1, more than 6 million Americans have signed up for health insurance--6 million. Four million are enrolled in Medicaid, 2 million in private coverage. Any way you look at it, that is good news. Now Republicans seem eager to find some bad news. They want to keep talking about Web site problems and stir up phony fears that personal information is not secure on this site. They are looking for the bad news because the facts are against them. Republicans said the Affordable Care Act would kill jobs. We hear it over and over again--kill jobs. Since the law was passed, we have added nearly 8 million jobs. Republicans said this law would cause health care costs to skyrocket, but we have had 4 straight years of the slowest health care cost growth in 50 years. Republicans said the ACA would explode the deficit, but repealing the law, which they have tried to do over 40 times on the floor, would increase the deficit by over $1.5 trillion. So, today, House Republicans are resorting to scare tactics. They are bringing up a poorly thought-out bill based on the false premise that healthcare.gov is not secure. The truth is--I will say it again--there have been no successful security attacks on healthcare.gov. Now, while no site, public or private, is 100 percent secure, healthcare.gov is subject to strict security standards, it is constantly monitored and tested, and it has procedures in place to notify consumers in the event of a breach. We can't say the same thing for private Web sites. We all heard about Target having their Web site attacked successfully. No one is asking that they make disclosures. In fact, Mr. Speaker, this is not a serious attempt to address this issue because it doesn't set any standards on private insurance companies. Private insurance companies hold far more private data than the exchanges. Mr. Speaker, as chairman, I worked on bipartisan legislation to set tough data privacy and security standards on government and private sector computer systems. House Democrats have supported these efforts, but this bill is not serious. Did you know this bill was never even considered in committee? It doesn't allow for any delay in reporting to protect ongoing law enforcement investigations. The bill creates a host of technical and administrative problems. This is purely a message bill. That is all we do these days. In between recesses, we have message bills on the floor of the House, and we get nothing done. This is purely a message bill, and the message is one that is designed to mislead. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. WAXMAN. Well, thank you for yielding. I am not going to take that much time, but I do want to respond to the comments that were just made on the House floor. No one is forced to go on this Web site. No one is forced to buy their insurance by going on the Web site. They could go to brokers. Once you sign up for insurance, whether it is public or private, your information is in their Web. It is in their computer system. That is true for private insurance. Does this bill do anything about breaches of private insurance? No. Now, the majority leader used a quote from someone in the administration, I think, to mislead the public about the security of healthcare.gov, but that same official said at the end of that quote, The added protections that we have put into place are best practices above and beyond what is usually recommended. No Web site is 100 percent secure, but this effort to scare people from signing up for coverage is wrong. If we do care about breaches in security, it ought to apply to private and public insurance, not just when you sign up, but when they hold your data.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from New York (Mr. Tonko) for yielding and for his kind words. Today the House is considering legislation to reduce the number of cleanups of dangerous contaminated sites that can occur each year. It is reducing the number of cleanups. At the same time, it is raising the cost to the taxpayers and letting polluters escape responsibility. This bill is a perfect illustration of what is wrong with the House of Representatives. It is a partisan bill, developed through an insufficient committee process that erodes landmark public health protections for the benefit of big polluters. When I first learned that the committee was considering this legislation to address the cleanup of contaminated sites on Federal land, I was hopeful that this was an issue that could be pursued on a bipartisan basis. We should always be looking for ways to improve our laws, to be more careful and effective in the use of taxpayer dollars, and to better protect public health and the environment. But the Energy and Commerce Committee leadership refused to work with the stakeholders to develop a workable and credible proposal. The Department of Justice and Department of Defense both offered to come help us craft new and effective policies, but the chairman of the subcommittee refused to even meet with them. Even worse, after the hearing on the bill, where a bill was out there, we had a hearing on it, the House Republicans added provisions that would let private companies avoid accountability for the pollution they cause. That means we are voting on legislation today to create new hurdles for holding polluters accountable, and we have no legislative record to explain it. The outcome of enacting this bill should be obvious. If polluters don't pay to clean up their pollution, then it just becomes one more burden on the taxpayer. And none of us should want that. This is the continuation of a disturbing trend. Over the last 3 years under Republican control, the House has voted over 400 times to weaken environmental laws. Last year, the House voted 51 times to benefit the oil and gas industry. From gutting laws that fight climate change to repealing rules that cut toxic air pollution, the House Republican leadership appears to have no qualms about targeting any public health and environmental protection. The House Republicans seem to have forgotten we represent all of the American people. We represent the parents who want to know that their children are not being exposed to cancer-causing pollution. We represent taxpayers who don't want to spend millions to clean up a polluted industrial site simply because a big corporation decided to walk away. And, yes, we even represent the Federal employees who shouldn't have to face the threat of State sanctions just for doing their job and following the law as they would under this bill. The administration strongly opposes this bill because it could delay cleanup of contaminated sites with the most urgent human health and safety risks. All of the Democrats on the Energy and Commerce Committee voted against these bills that have been combined and are being presented to us today. We all oppose it because it will increase litigation and let polluters off the hook. This bill would be vetoed if it ever made its way to the President's desk. Most likely it will never see the light of day in the other House. This bill might play well with some special interest groups, but it should never become law; and I urge all Members to oppose this legislation.

Mr. WAXMAN. I thank you for yielding so I can correct the record. Bipartisan staff on our committee met with the Department of Justice and the Department of Defense to hear a long list of objections they had to the bill that was before the markup in committee. When we went into the markup in committee, I personally asked in the public session if Chairman Shimkus, the chairman of the subcommittee, would meet personally with the Department of Justice and Department of Defense because they had great concerns about the bill. He said at that markup that he would. We checked with the Department of Defense, we checked with the Department of Justice, and there has been no such meeting. There has been some change, but they have not really addressed all the issues that I think Members should have been taking into consideration. There was really not an attempt, if the gentleman would permit, to work this out on a bipartisan basis, to hear what other people had to say about it. This bill was driven through and was being written whether we had a hearing, written after the hearings where they had a markup, written after the markup without getting all the facts; and it is a flawed bill as a result of it. Thank you for yielding to me.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill before us: H.R. 3527, the Poison Center Network Act. This bill reauthorizes the Poison Control Program. I have been a strong supporter of poison control centers over the years and co- sponsored the 2000 legislation first authorizing the program. There is currently a nationwide network of poison control centers-- due in large part to federal support for these centers. Poison control centers play a crucial role in reducing injuries and deaths caused by poison exposure, such as from household products, chemicals in the workplace, and medicine. Studies have shown that these poison control centers reduce the severity of illness and death caused by poison exposure--a leading cause of unintentional injury death--and save money by reducing the number of unnecessary trips to the emergency room. In California alone, the poison control system has managed millions of cases since its inception in 1997. The system consults on hundreds of thousands of cases each year. And in just one year, the work of the California system is estimated to save $70 million in health care costs and avert more than 60,000 emergency room visits. H.R. 3527 reauthorizes and makes enhancements to the ``Poison Center Support, Enhancement, and Awareness Act of 2008.'' The bill extends State grants to establish and operate poison centers; maintains a national toll-free number to ensure access to poison center services by connecting callers to the poison center serving their area; and supports a national media campaign to educate the public and health care providers about poison prevention, poison center services, and the toll-free number. I am glad we were able to work in a bipartisan manner to move this important public health measure through our Committee and bring it to the House floor today. I'd like to commend Energy and Commerce Members, Representatives Eliot Engel and Lee Terry, for their leadership on this bill. I support this measure, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting in support of H.R. 3527.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, as we begin the second session of the 113th Congress, Americans all over this country are coming up with their New Year's resolutions for 2014. In Congress, I propose we make this the year we stop ignoring climate change. Last year, CO2 concentrations reached dangerous new heights in our atmosphere. We suffered through--and paid for--record- breaking extreme weather events, and we received dire new projections from international scientific organizations on the threats posed by climate change. What did the Republican-led House do? It continued its anti- environment voting record, voting 109 times in 2013 to weaken environmental protections. This behavior is reckless and irresponsible. Despite the gridlock in Congress, the Obama administration has been making progress. Under the President's leadership, the Nation has doubled the production of renewable energy like wind and solar, vehicles are more fuel efficient, and toxic air pollution for power plants has been cut dramatically. Let's work with the President this year to build off of these successes so that, on December 31, we can look with pride that we finally took action on climate change.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to express my disappointment that we are letting unemployment insurance be denied to so many long-term unemployed, especially a few days right after Christmas. We should not leave town until we have fixed this problem. I am going to vote for this budget because it will ease the irrational sequestration cuts that have already done so much harm to our country and our economy, which is the main reason that I am going to be an ``aye'' vote on the bill. But I am here to speak on behalf of the Energy and Commerce Committee Democrats to express my strong support for the temporary reprieve from the, what is called, SGR cuts, the cuts to physicians who see Medicare patients. Congress is making enormous strides toward the repeal and replacement of the flawed Medicare physician payment system, but more time is going to be needed to finish the job. As of today, all three congressional committees of jurisdiction have marked up historic bipartisan legislation that moves the system to one that rewards value of care rather than volume of care. This short-term extension that is part of this bill will allow 3 months for Congress to complete floor and conference action on this legislation. We need to keep this process moving full steam ahead to get a permanent solution on both the SGR as well as the other Medicare and Medicaid extenders as quickly as possible. This temporary patch will allow us the time to continue that work. I do have serious concerns with both the Medicare and Medicaid policies in the Budget Act. The Medicaid provisions will result in delayed payments to providers for 3 months while States seek out payment from other potential sources. This is simply bad policy. Congress would not dream of allowing Medicare to avoid paying for services for 3 months, yet this is the policy that we are going to adopt for Medicaid. The other Medicaid provision overturns a Supreme Court case which would allow a State that would take a beneficiary's liability settlement that is intended to compensate for lost wages or future medical costs to pay for Medicaid services. Indeed, the language, as drafted, suggests that the State could collect amounts even in excess of the amount the party was liable for. This provision is unconscionable, and I hope that when we come back, we can fix it. Further, the extension of the sequester on Medicare--we are relieving the sequester on the defense side and the domestic spending side under appropriations, but we are leaving in place a sequestration of Medicare, which means continuing cuts into the future without any policy rationale. We are talking about cuts to doctors and hospitals and other providers. There is no justification for it. And, in addition, there are cuts that are going to be applied by continuing this part of the sequestration to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services of much-needed resources to carry out their many responsibilities. This is not a good way to make law, and it will result in some unfortunate consequences. We need to fix that again when we come back next year. But I expressed my support for this short-term extension of not just the SGR but also the other expiring Medicare and Medicaid provisions, including the TMA and QI, which are critical for low-income populations. And I look forward to addressing the issues of SGR and the extenders with our colleagues over the next few months to develop a permanent solution. With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.