Henry Waxman

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. No, it would not. Obviously, for emergency exemptions to be effective they must be issued in a timely manner. Nothing in my amendment would undermine that goal. I am aware that there is disagreement among stakeholders on what EPA's priorities should be in the implementation of this law. It is my hope and expectation that the Tolerance Reassessment Advisory Committee, convened at the request of Vice President Gore, will help to bring consensus to implementation of our pesticide laws.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, just last year the National Academy of Sciences issued this authoritative report on cleanup strategies for contaminated sediments. So this is just simply, they say, a provision in the bill asking for a study. Well, they are asking for another study and they are telling EPA, do not do anything, after all these years of studying, after all the years of working on this problem with the National Academy of Sciences telling us that there are strategies that we ought to be using to protect people from PCBs. For God's sake, that is what causes cancer, and they want to stop indefinitely the EPA from acting until another study and another study and another study. It is a dilatory tactic.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inform the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) that the National Academy of Sciences last year issued an authoritative report on cleanup strategies for contamination.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, this language does limit the agency. I do not think it is binding, but they feel a limitation when the committee that is appropriating their money to stay in existence tells them not to do anything until you get another study, and this additional study would keep them from doing things like putting a cap on settlement of PCBs.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I do so only for the purpose of informing the gentleman that this amendment contains nothing on global warming. That was discussed as a possibility in this amendment, but, as I announced in my opening remarks, we withdrew that particular section from the amendment. So we are not dealing with the global warming question. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, the Knollenberg provisions are not affected in any way by this amendment. The riders my amendment addresses are contained in the report on this bill. Technically because these directives are report language, they are not binding on the agencies, but that is only technical. It is, however, important to realize that they are a message to the agencies to not go forward with enforcing existing laws. That is why it is important to eliminate them in order to clarify that they should not affect the agencies in any way. Mr. Chairman, Congress should be working to solve our environmental problems, not working so secretly to include antienvironmental provisions in appropriations bills at the request of many big polluters. Let us not roll back our environmental laws with these antienvironmental riders. I urge all Members to support this amendment and give us a clean VA- HUD appropriations bill.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, since the beginning of 1995, the House has produced a steady stream of assaults on the environment. Bills have been introduced to repeal the Clean Air Act, simply repeal it. Riders have been snuck in to must pass legislation, particularly appropriations bills, to cripple protection of endangered species, exempt oil refineries from air pollution laws, and block the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating arsenic levels in our drinking water. Earlier this year, I had thought that the House would finally halt its war on our environment. I had hoped that the sneak attacks on the environment would cease, and I would hope that we would reject the antienvironment extremism that is so out of touch with American values. Unfortunately, it seems that, once again, our environment is being attacked. As in years passed, the VA-HUD appropriations bill contains antienvironmental riders in both the bill and the report accompanying this legislation which would hinder our efforts to protect the environment under existing successful programs. Specifically, there is language that would prevent the cleanup of PCB-contaminated sediments, stall implementation of our pesticide safety laws, prevent adequate cleanup of old nuclear facilities, interfere with efforts to control air pollution in our national parks, and block controls of dangerous mercury air pollution. These riders do not belong in this legislation. This is a bill to fund the EPA and other agencies. They do not belong in this bill, and they are all an affront to every person who cares about the quality of the air we breathe and the water we drink. My amendment would prevent a rollback of our important and popular environmental programs. It would strip out the environmental riders attached to this legislation. In effect, it would halt this attack on our environment. One of the provisions of the bill and the report accompanying the bill prevents EPA from regulating emissions of mercury pollution. This provision is extremely damaging, not only to our environment, but to people's health. Mercury is a known toxic pollutant of special concern to pregnant women. Important studies have been released this year on the massive mercury air pollution caused by emissions from power plants. Yet, despite these substantial threats for mercury, the report contains language which could block any regulatory determinations regarding mercury air emissions for years. The report accompanying this bill also contains language which would block the cleanup of PCB-contaminated sediments. PCBs are known to cause cancer and contaminate large areas of the Hudson and Housatonic Rivers of the Northeast and a large area off the coast of California. Many experts have called for removing this contamination through dredging, but the report language would prevent EPA from requiring any dredging, leaving the local communities contaminated. There is also language that would make it hard for EPA to ensure that pesticides do not exceed safe levels in our food. In 1996, just 2 years ago, Congress unanimously passed legislation to make sure that all food is safe from pesticides that might harm infants and children. We must allow this law to be implemented, not impede its implementation as the report would do. The goal of my amendment is simple. It would eliminate those and other objectionable antienvironmental riders. Some of my colleagues urged me not to address global warming issues in this amendment, and I have modified my amendment so as not to address global warming. I believe it is essential to remove those extreme restrictions on the administration's ability to deal with global warming, but in deference to my colleagues, the global warming riders are not being addressed in this amendment.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I want to commend him on his statement. I think the gentleman's amendment is one that should be passed by the House, but I respect the fact that we are going to let the process move forward on this legislation. I think 50 years from now, people would look back at the appropriations bill with dismay if it were to stay in its present form, because, as I read the bill that came out of committee, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Council on Environmental Quality would be restricted from educating and conducting outreach and holding informational seminars on policies underlying the protocol relating to the Kyoto Conference. And not only that, it would be prevented from thinking through and developing proposals to deal with the global climate questions. The amendment we just adopted a while ago offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) would have struck, did in fact strike the most egregious parts of the committee's recommendation to us. I would hope that, as this bill moves forward, there will be other approaches that will assure those who are anxious about this matter that the treaty, if there is one, will not be implemented until it is ratified. We do not implement laws that have not been passed, and we do not allow executive branch agencies to adopt regulations to enforce treaties that have not been ratified. I think it is a mistaken notion for fear that that treaty would be implemented in any way to stop EPA and the CEQ from going forward and thinking about strategies and developing plans. So I want to identify myself with your comments and to express the fact that we made a step in the right direction with the Obey amendment. I think we need to go much further on this issue when the bill moves into conference. As I understand it, the Senate has a different approach. Even Senator Byrd has a different approach than what is in this legislation. I would think it would be doing a disservice to the American people if we stopped everybody from looking at this problem because the problem is not going to go away.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have been in and out of the Chambers for the last several hours waiting for an opportunity to come in and say a few words. This has really been unprecedented to see so many Members want to come forward to pay tribute to our colleague. One minute is inadequate but so would 5 minutes be inadequate to say the kinds of things that Lou Stokes deserves to hear. Different Members leave different imprints for their service. Few Members can match the difference that Lou Stokes has made in this country and in this institution. First of all, as a colleague, he has always been helpful to people. His integrity, his intelligence, his dedication to public service stand out and he will always be an inspiration to all of us. He has made a great difference to people not just in his district but all around the country when it comes to questions like housing and education and health care and environmental questions. I think that it is important for us to pay tribute to him. I want to take this moment to thank him for his friendship. He will always serve to me as a model for what a legislator ought to be.

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

Mr. WAXMAN. The gentleman is correct that EPA should clearly explain how it is reaching its decisions. I am aware that EPA is currently developing guidance to help in this regard, and my amendment would not interfere with this process. I also agree that EPA should use reliable data when available. However, sometimes reliable data is unavailable and EPA must make reasonable assumptions in order to not ignore legitimate public health concerns. When these assumptions are not dictated by the statute, the agency has greater discretion. I hope that the EPA's guidance will help clarify issues regarding what information is required and how and when assumptions are used so that all stakeholders can understand how the law will be implemented. Additionally, I expect the agency will fully consider any data brought to them.

Mr. WAXMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina is correct. This rule is long overdue and should be issued immediately. Nothing in my amendment would prohibit the EPA from implementing any statutory requirement under the Food Quality Protection Act.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. WAXMAN. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina and commend him for his leadership on this issue. There has been recent misinformation on this issue, and I congratulate the gentleman for working towards a consensus approach.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WAXMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to commend the gentleman for his leadership on this issue. I know he had a similar amendment which we have incorporated into our amendment. It is important that we deal with this issue. I was pleased by the assurances from the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) that these report language provisions do not have any binding impact on the agencies. But I fear that when we ask them to do another report after they have already done so much, as the gentleman so eloquently pointed out, that it may be intimidating on them to go forward. I think that is a reason why we need to adopt this amendment.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on H.R. 8, The Border Smog Reduction Act of 1998. I want to commend Chairman Bliley, Chairman Bilirakis, Representative Bilbray, Representative Brown, and Representative Stupak for working together to perfect this bill. H.R. 8 has been significantly improved from the version originally introduced. As currently written, this legislation will make a modest improvement over current law authorizing the federal government to assist States in efforts to control air pollution from vehicles registered in foreign countries. This legislation is not perfect and I remain concerned about an approach which statutorily restricts vehicles from entering the San Diego border more than twice in any one year. I question whether it will be possible to inspect and repair vehicles commuting daily from Mexico in only two visits. It's not difficult to imagine a host of problems when this plan is actually implemented. Additionally, I think it's a mistake to exclude commercial traffic in San Diego from federal enforcement, when light-duty commercial traffic is responsible for the same types of air pollution problems that noncommercial traffic is. In effect, this legislation will focus on pollution from commuting workers and students, while ignoring pollution from commercial vehicles. Notwithstanding these reservations, I commend Representative Bilbray for resolving most of my concerns. I am especially pleased that California will have the option of changing their program from the prescriptive one mandated in this legislation. I also want to commend Representative Brown for a study he has sponsored that will analyze the impacts on air quality associated with the passage of the North American Free Trade Act. This will provide critical information for future efforts to control the adverse environmental effects of foreign diesel trucks entering our country.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. I did not realize there is no yielding back and forth.

Mr. WAXMAN. Now, my point, Mr. Chairman, is that FDA has to look at these words which are not words within the context of the FDA law. The chemical inducement of abortion is a new phrase. It has no precedent in FDA's statutory authority, it has no legal definition, no statutory reference, no regulatory guidance and no legislative history. In other words, if this amendment were adopted, the head of the FDA would have to look at the application from a drug manufacturer. If the application said that the drug was being requested for approval for the purpose of a chemical inducement of abortion, then I would say this amendment would apply and there is no question about it. But if the gentleman, as he stated earlier, would ask the FDA administrator to in some way make some judgment that really that is what they intend, even though they do not say it, then we are doing something beyond a limitation on the use of the funds.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, if I may conclude, my point is if the FDA Commissioner has to make a judgment, then this amendment should not be permitted in order.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am a little confused, and I want some clarification. As I understand what the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) told us, he expects the FDA to make some kind of interpretation of the primary intent of the drug.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am not asking the gentleman's conclusions on the point. I was trying to find out what he would ask FDA to do if a manufacturer came in and said the primary purpose of the drug was to be abortifacient. The gentleman would argue then that his amendment would apply, is that correct?

Mr. WAXMAN. If the manufacturer came in and asked for approval of a drug and it did not state that it was for that purpose, then the amendment would not apply?