Henry Waxman

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, as a supporter of the Affordable Care Act, I look forward to next year when we will see all Americans have a chance to buy health insurance. For those who are on Medicare, that is their health insurance coverage, and we will only keep the promise for coverage to them if we pay the providers who give them care, especially the physicians. That is why I ask for an ``aye'' vote on this bill.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise, reluctantly, to oppose this bill. First of all, I want to express to Gabriella Miller's family my sincere sympathies. We all want to fund more research to fight pediatric disease. Nothing could be a more worthy objective. If we could only reverse the cuts that this House has adopted under Republican leadership, the National Institutes of Health could make an even greater amount of progress in understanding and treating so many different devastating diseases for children and others. This bill was never heard in committee. We never had a chance to have witnesses come forward and talk about it or debate how best to achieve the bill's stated goals. That is why many of us think it is more a statement than a credible proposal, especially when you look at the Republican House majority's record on biomedical research funding. It is a dismal one. They wrote and passed a bill which would have significantly cut NIH. They supported sequestration, which similarly reduced the NIH budget by nearly $2 billion in 2013 alone. And now this bill comes along, where they claim to provide NIH with about $13 million a year for pediatric research. That is a miniscule amount compared to the funding for pediatric research NIH lost due to Republican budget cuts and sequestration. The way we usually handle NIH is the Appropriations Committee issues a bill appropriating money for NIH. They can do that. If we increase the money for NIH, they can do that. They don't need this bill to increase funding for pediatric research. What they need is a higher spending cap. This bill doesn't bring about a higher spending cap. And then I have concerns I want to express about the way they structure the investments in pediatric research by funding it through the NIH Director's Common Fund. By design, that fund is not disease or population specific, giving NIH flexibility to determine funding priorities each year. It also doesn't take into consideration the existing pediatric research initiative, which we strengthened with the recent enactment of pediatric research network legislation. Researchers all across the country have echoed the importance of sustained NIH funding for our Nation's health, our economic growth, and our global leadership on biomedical research.

Mr. WAXMAN. Regrettably, this legislation before us does nothing to truly advance research at NIH. If we really had a sincere commitment to strengthen research at NIH, let's work together on a bipartisan basis. Let's have hearings on the legislation. Let's make sure that we have funding for all the research activities. I think that we need to find a solution to restore NIH funding rather than purely symbolic legislation. This reminds me of the time when the Republicans closed the government. They refused to pass an appropriations bill for the government to function. And then people said, Well, what about the parks? They said, Well, we'll have a bill just to open the parks. What about NIH research? Well, we'll do NIH research, but not the Centers for Disease Control and not other things. If you are going to do the job, do it right, and don't pretend, especially to a family that is grieving, that you are really doing more for pediatric research when the overall NIH funds are not increased.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. I thank you for yielding. Both of you are absolutely right. It is so shortsighted to have us cut back on funding for the National Institutes of Health and their research agenda. When you make a cut in this area one year, it isn't like you can make it up the next year. Researchers go on to other fields. It is shortsighted to make these kinds of cuts. I also wanted to comment on the fact that every day members of the Safe Climate Caucus have come to this House floor and talked about the shortsightedness of the leadership of the House of Representatives in ignoring the science on climate change. And so every day we have had speakers--the gentleman from California has been one of them--to just use a minute to talk about this pressing issue. Yesterday, The Wall Street Journal reported that China has released a national blueprint for adapting to climate change. This follows the International Energy Agency's recent prediction that China will install more renewable energy over the next two decades than the U.S. and Europe combined. And China has recently implemented a series of regional cap-and-trade programs which are putting a price on carbon in China. According to the Chinese Government--and I thank the gentleman for giving me this opportunity--climate change has already cost its people tens of billions of dollars and potentially thousands of lives. These developments in China are important because China is the world's largest emitter of carbon pollution, and we are the second largest. Our two countries need to play a leading role in addressing this global threat. President Obama is committed to global leadership. His climate action plan calls for working with China and other nations to bend the post- 2020 emissions trajectory. He is bringing in John Podesta, an experienced leader with a deep understanding of climate issues, to help him succeed. We in the House need to stop being part of the problem and start being part of the solution. We need to start taking the climate threat seriously and work to find solutions. If China can take action on climate change, so can the U.S. If we don't, we will lose the race to develop the clean energy technologies that will power the future. Let's not be shortsighted. Let's invest in research--research to protect our health and research to protect our planet. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise as a member of the Safe Climate Caucus to call attention to a new report from the Nation's premier scientific body, the National Academy of Sciences. We typically associate climate change with gradual, longer-term problems, but according to the academy, climate change could also pose a risk of rapid hard-to-predict environmental changes that have the potential to cause widespread damage in the near term. The report warns that the collapse of the polar sea ice could send sea levels soaring. The destruction of the coral reefs could cause a mass extinction of sea life. The elimination of summer sea ice in the Arctic could alter the world's weather patterns. These ``tipping points'' could happen suddenly. It is reckless to do nothing when faced with these threats. If there is a 10 percent chance that these threats would happen, it is irresponsible for us to ignore it. Dr. Richard Alley, one of the coauthors, compared the threat of abrupt climate change to the dangers posed by drunk drivers. He said, ``You can't see it coming, so you can't prepare for it.'' Congress is acting irresponsibly if we don't take this issue seriously. We want to pass on a planet that is worthy of our children's and our grandchildren's future.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, on February 15, a small group of Democratic Members of the House joined together to form the Safe Climate Caucus. We vowed to come to the House floor every day to talk about the defining environmental challenge of our time: climate change. Today marks the 100th day we have spoken on the House floor. The Safe Climate Caucus is composed of Representatives from across this country. We come from the west coast, the east coast, the North, the South, and the Midwest. We come from coastal regions, urban areas, and rural communities. We represent a cross-section of America. We started the Safe Climate Caucus because of the enormous disconnect that exists between what scientists are telling us about the dangers of climate change and the conspiracy of silence and denial that exists in this House. There is a mountain of evidence that climate change is a real and dangerous threat to the future of our children and grandchildren. Yet this body refuses to accept the scientific reality. I wish my Republican colleagues would open their eyes and escape their congressional bubble. Firefighters across the West know that fires are getting bigger and more dangerous. Farmers in the Midwest know that droughts and floods are becoming more common and more intense. Coastal communities know that rising sea levels and extreme storms threaten their very existence. And just last month, a supertyphoon--perhaps the strongest ever recorded--demolished entire cities in the Philippines. Extreme weather, sea level rise, heat waves, droughts, flooding, wildfires, pests--that is what climate change looks like. So what is this House doing? Denying, obstructing, and weakening the Clean Air Act. In June, the International Energy Agency warned that, if we don't act now, avoiding catastrophic climate change will cost trillions of dollars. In October, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that the evidence that the Earth is warming is ``unequivocal.'' This is the same level of confidence that scientists have that smoking causes cancer. Last month, the World Meteorological Association reported that the levels of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere set new records, reaching concentrations higher than any in the last 800,000 years. Yet this House endures it all. We challenged the Republicans on the Energy and Commerce Committee to come to the floor and debate us, to defend their record of inaction. They never showed up. The committee won't even hold a hearing to listen to the scientists. Democrats are in the minority, so we can't call hearings. But we won't be muzzled. Since February, the members of the Safe Climate Caucus reported on the alarms that the scientists are sounding. In fact, today marks the 100th legislative day that members from the Safe Climate Caucus have spoken out. Except during the Republican shutdown of the government, our members have come to the floor every day we have been in session. It has not always been easy to keep this streak of speeches alive, but we have come because of the commitment of our 31 members to take action before it is too late. We are speaking out because we know we have a duty to our neighbors, to our children, and to our grandchildren. We know that when future generations look back at these times, they won't remember the debates we have had on the deficit. They won't remember the debates we have had on boosting oil drilling. What they will want to know is whether we acted to protect the world from catastrophic climate change while we still had time, and they will want to know whether we made the investments we need to make the United States the world leader in the clean energy technologies of the future. We are at a critical juncture. I urge all Members to join with the Safe Climate Caucus in ensuring we make the right choices for our future and for our economy.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my sincere disappointment that I was not available to vote in favor of the Democratic motion to recommit on H.R. 2728, the Protecting States' Rights to Promote American Energy Security Act. While I do not support the underlying legislation, I would have voted in favor of this motion to recommit in order to allow the Department of the Interior to require the public disclosure of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing on public lands. The federal government has a responsibility to ensure that communities across the country have access to a baseline of information about the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing fluids and any potential impacts on human health and the environment. Strong state and federal regulation, full transparency, and rigorous science are essential to ensuring that oil and gas drilling occurs safely and responsibly in the United States. The inclusion of the motion to recommit would have helped bring transparency to oil and gas drilling activities on public lands, and I deeply regret that it was not included in the bill.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We are told that the Pompeo bill seeks to speed up the approval of interstate natural gas pipelines. In fact, it would have the opposite effect, delaying and disrupting a pipeline approval process that is working. The nonpartisan Government Accountability Office has concluded that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission pipeline permitting is predictable and consistent and gets pipelines built. The pipeline companies testified that the process is ``generally very good'' and that the ``sector enjoys a favorable legal and regulatory framework for the approval of new infrastructure.'' In short, this is a government program that works well. H.R. 1900 would disrupt this functioning permitting process by arbitrarily limiting the time that FERC and other agencies have to review pipeline applications. When faced with these time limits, one of two things will happen. Agencies can conduct inadequate environmental reviews and rush to approve permits that do not comply with our Nation's health, safety, and environmental laws. This would be a terrible outcome because the public won't be protected and pipeline permits will be legally vulnerable. Alternatively, the agencies can deny the permits when the time limits prevent them from completing legally mandated pipeline reviews, and this would be a bad result as well because needed pipeline capacity would not get constructed. The career director at the Office of Energy Projects at FERC testified that he didn't believe that this bill would result in faster permitting. He explained that the bill would actually result in slower permitting if agencies had no choice but to deny applications because of the arbitrary deadlines established by this bill. With this bill, we will get rushed decisions and more project denials. No one benefits from that, not even, or especially not, the pipeline companies. But the problem with this bill doesn't end there. The Pompeo bill automatically grants environmental permits for a pipeline project if an agency does not make a decision on a permit within 90 days of the issuance of FERC's environmental analysis. This provision would sacrifice public health and environmental protections in favor of an arbitrary deadline. And no one can explain how this provision can actually be implemented. These permits are detailed documents that include emission limits, technology or operating requirements, and conditions to ensure the environment is protected. Agencies need to figure out all of these details and then actually draft the permits. Complex permits might not even be written, but somehow they would be required to magically take effect. In an effort to cobble together a solution to the mystery of how incomplete permits could be automatically issued, the bill transforms FERC into a ``superpermitting'' agency. If an agency misses the 90-day deadline, the bill apparently requires FERC to write and issue the permit itself. Under this approach, FERC will be issuing BLM rights-of-way through Federal lands. FERC will be figuring out water discharge limits. FERC will be determining which technologies should be employed to reduce air pollution emissions. FERC will be issuing permits to protect wetlands and even bald eagles. These are jobs that FERC doesn't have the expertise or resources to carry out. They are ordinarily conducted by other agencies. But in this bill, because of the deadline, FERC will be required to take on those responsibilities. There are going to be real environmental and safety impacts if permits automatically go into effect without the responsible agencies completing the necessary analysis. The Army Corps of Engineers and EPA raised concerns that automatic permitting could lead to permits that are inconsistent with the requirements of the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act, and this could result in harmful water or air pollution. This unworkable bill won't speed up pipeline permitting, but it will have adverse health, safety, and environmental impacts, and it will undermine the public's acceptance of interstate natural gas pipelines going through their communities. That is why it is opposed by the Pipeline Safety Trust and the public interest environmental groups, and that is why the administration has announced that it would veto this bill if it ever made it to the President's desk. This is a bad bill. The consequences have not been thought through, and I urge all Members to oppose the bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. I do that in order to respond to the concerns that have been raised about natural gas prices in the Northeast. This is a real issue. New England is using more natural gas to generate electricity and more natural gas for heating homes than in the past. On the coldest winter days, when natural gas is needed for both heating and electricity, there is more demand than can be met by the existing pipeline capacity, and that, of course, can result in price spikes. This bill does nothing to solve that problem. The problem in New England isn't caused by pipeline applications taking too long to get approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The problem is that the pipeline companies aren't even submitting the applications because they haven't figured out who will pay for these new pipelines. The pipeline companies haven't been satisfied that there is a sufficient year-round demand to justify and finance these pipelines. That is an issue that FERC is actively looking at and has been holding stakeholder conferences about. But this has nothing do with Mr. Pompeo's bill. Cutting corners on the permitting process isn't going to help get additional pipeline capacity built for the Northeast. I don't think we ought to be blaming government for every problem. The reality is that FERC and the government didn't create this problem. It is a problem of the economics of it all, and the faster we understand that, the faster we can try to find real solutions. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to myself. Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, I understand that proponents of this bill want a one-size-fits-all Washington, D.C., solution to the timeframes required for pipeline reviews. The problem is that there isn't some magic number of days that works for all pipelines in all circumstances. There are 10-mile pipelines far from population centers that cross no rivers, and there are pipelines hundreds of miles long that cross multiple rivers and run through backyards. These are very different projects. It should come as no surprise that they take different amounts of time to review. When reviewing a project, FERC doesn't just have to do an environmental review. It also has to conduct an engineering review. FERC must evaluate, approve, and in many cases alter a pipeline's route to address environmental, engineering, and community concerns. FERC must determine a pipeline's tariffs and rates. These are steps that take time. For longer and more complex pipelines, these steps take longer, and they should. FERC decides 92 percent of all pipeline applications within 12 months. Let me repeat that: 92 percent of all the applications are approved within 12 months. The fact that 8 percent of the projects take longer isn't a problem. It reflects the reality that a small number of projects are more complex and impact more people. If you have constituents in the paths of these proposed pipelines, you should want the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and other agencies to protect your constituents by completing the necessary reviews. Your constituents don't want a one-size-fits-all Washington solution for all problems that are not the same. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased at this time to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor), a very important member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. WAXMAN. I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentlewoman.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I know of no union supporting this bill, nor do I think the Northeast ratepayers said in their letter where they expressed their concern about the supplies where there is a very cold spell, that they want this bill either. I am pleased at this time to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko), a distinguished subcommittee ranking member on one of the energy subcommittees.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, we are not arguing whether we should have an infrastructure of pipelines to take natural gas from one place to another. That is not the issue. And that is a false premise that, for some reason, that may be an area of disagreement. It is not. The area of disagreement is whether, in letting a pipeline be built, we are going to shortchange the ability of the agencies to review the pipeline. And if we do that, there may not be time to look at BLM issues or safe water issues or clean air issues because FERC will be told, if you don't do your job within a certain period of time, this permit is going to be approved, and these other agencies aren't going to have time to do any review. Well, FERC doesn't have the ability to do other agencies' jobs; and those other agencies ought to be able to do their job, and FERC should do its job in a timely manner. But ``a timely manner'' doesn't mean a certain amount of time and no more--not another month, not another 2 months, not another 3 months. I want to close by sharing some of the comments made by others. The White House said they will veto this bill. The President and his administration are against it. They say the bill provides for the automatic approval of natural gas pipeline permits if applications are not decided within ``rigid, unworkable time frames.'' The administration also notes that the bill could cause confusion and increase litigation risk, and further, the bill ``may actually delay projects or lead to more project denials, undermining the intent of the legislation.''

Mr. WAXMAN. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let's say they needed a couple more months but that 12-month period is right there. Well, they will either have to approve it without those extra few months of review or deny it, which could mean longer periods of time before the pipeline is approved. It is counter to what the proponents say that they expect. The Pipeline Safety Trust and other public interest organizations said about this bill: ``H.R. 1900 will needlessly put at risk the well- being of the people and environment where natural gas pipelines are built while making it easier for pipeline companies to use Federal eminent domain authority to take private land without a thorough review.'' This is going to allow eminent domain authority by a private company to take away people's land. Is that something that Members of Congress want to vote for, your constituents' land could be seized by a private company when there had not been a thorough review that would allow this kind of power over private property? That shouldn't be the result of a rushed, incomplete process. We wouldn't want a rushed, incomplete process of taking away liberty. We shouldn't allow a rushed, incomplete process to take away private property. The Pipeline Safety Trust also explains that ``rushed or incomplete reviews resulting in automatic approvals pose a threat to public safety and the environment,'' and they characterize the bill's transformation of FERC into a ``superpermitting'' agency that issues other agencies' permits as ``bizarre.'' And they are right that it ``effectively places control over key environment and public health statutes in the hands of an agency primarily tasked with regulating the economics of natural gas and electricity.'' They don't have the expertise, they don't have the personnel, they don't have the budget, and now we are giving them that kind of a job. And the last quote I have is from the natural gas pipeline industry. Now, I realize the industry would always like the permitting to go faster, but the industry told us over and over that the existing process works well. In May, the CEO of Dominion Energy testified on behalf of the pipeline companies. He told the Subcommittee on Energy and Power, ``The interstate natural gas pipeline sector enjoys a favorable legal and regulatory framework for the approval of new infrastructure,'' and his conclusion was that ``the natural gas model works.'' Conservatives used to say, if it works, don't fix it, and yet they want to fix it with a lot of uncertain results, perhaps unintended consequences. Mr. Chairman, this bill would cause a lot of problems without speeding up the permitting process, which is currently getting thousands of miles of new pipeline built in a timely manner. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN

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

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 1545, the PEPFAR Stewardship and Oversight Act. Since its establishment in 2003, the U.S. President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, known as PEPFAR, has become arguably the most effective global health program that the U.S. government has ever administered. Already, nearly 15 million AIDS victims have been served; let us not stop there. The HIV/AIDS epidemic threatened to eliminate an entire generation in Africa. Economies were threatened and health care systems were wholly unequipped to handle the magnitude of the epidemic. Through PEPFAR, the U.S. government and its local partners provided diagnostic testing, administered antiretroviral treatment (ART), and expanded HIV/AIDS programs to lower the rate of transmission. These efforts achieved significant success. This year the millionth HIV-free baby was born due to PEPFAR-supported prevention of mother-to-child transmission. In 13 countries, the rate of infection is below the increasing rate of adults requiring treatment. Now we can finally work toward an AIDS-free generation. S. 1545 extends our commitment to PEPFAR and the U.N. Global Fund through 2018. It maintains the 10 percent funding requirement for orphans and vulnerable children, and at least 51 percent for treatment programs. This bill does not address the changing priorities in the second phase of PEPFAR, giving PEPFAR the bandwidth to strengthen health systems, explore public-private partnerships, and increase country ownership. Local partnership and ownership is essential to the sustainability of PEPFAR's programs. This partnership has already begun; the effects can be seen in broader administration of medical services, though the parallel expansion of social services for the HIV community has lagged. The continuation of the 33 percent funding cap for the U.N. Global Fund ensures local partnership to address such problems. One of the most notable changes to this legislation is its increase in oversight. I look forward to receiving the annual, joint oversight and auditing plans that will be developed by the Inspectors General of the Department of State, USAID, and HHS, thus increasing Congressional oversight as well. It will include per-patient cost studies and analysis of the shift toward greater country ownership. PEPFAR is no longer a start-up program, and the oversight associated with its shift toward long-term sustainability must be adjusted accordingly. Yesterday, the Senate passed this bill with unanimous consent. It is our turn to do the same.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. This bill is not a bill to let people keep their health insurance plans. The President took care of that issue yesterday. This bill is another vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act. It would take away the core protections of that law. This bill creates an entire shadow market of substandard health care plans. It will destabilize the health insurance exchanges, raise premiums, and continue to allow insurers to discriminate on the basis of preexisting conditions. The bill takes away the core consumer protections that are part of the law. Under the Republican bill, it ensures to cherry-pick the best risks and destabilize the insurance market for everyone else. That is what we would have if they repealed the law. People would still be out of a chance to get health insurance. Now, I understand the concern of many Members, that individuals should be able to keep their health insurance if they like it; but there is a profound difference between providing relief for individuals whose policies have been canceled, which is what the President did yesterday, and re-creating the discriminatory, inefficient insurance market that we had before health reform, which is what this bill will do. We need to have some perspective on this issue. For those currently in the individual insurance market, nearly 5 million people, they will be eligible for a tax credit worth an average of $5,000. Over a million more people will be eligible for Medicaid, which means additional savings. Because of better coverage that protects them from crippling medical costs, millions more will lower their out-of-pocket costs; and the 25 million Americans without insurance will finally get a good deal on quality coverage. No one can be denied coverage because of preexisting conditions. No one will see higher rates because they get sick. No one will see their rates go up. No one will run up against annual coverage limits or realize too late that their plan didn't cover the key benefits that they need. This week, we learned that 1.5 million people have already applied for coverage--a faster signup rate than experienced in Massachusetts-- even with all the technical problems we have had. In my State of California, nearly 400,000 people have begun applications in the first month. There will be a total of 6 months to sign up. This program is going to work. These are significant signs of progress.

Mr. WAXMAN. I yield myself an additional 10 seconds. They show us we are on our way to dramatically expanding health insurance coverage in this Nation. This bill will take us backwards. I urge a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), who played such an important role in drafting the Affordable Care Act.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), the top Democrat on the Health Subcommittee of Energy and Commerce.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman will not get a unanimous vote. At this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee. (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I wish to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the dean of the House, the chairman emeritus of the Energy and Commerce Committee and the longest- standing Member in support of universal health care coverage. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).