Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 3 minutes.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, this amendment would eliminate funding to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or the IPCC.

The U.S. contributes only $2.3 million to the IPCC, and our $2.3 million contribution leverages a global science assessment institution with global outreach and global technical input, a process we could not carry out alone and one that could come to a halt without U.S. support.

Their work on climate change is unparalleled. In its four assessment reports to date, they have brought together thousands of scientists around the world in disciplines ranging from atmospheric science, to forest ecology, to economics to provide objective and policy neutral information. The panel has attracted hundreds of the best U.S. scientists. In fact, a majority of the research that's reviewed is undertaken in U.S. institutions.

The IPCC's work has been lauded by the U.S. Academy of Sciences and by the InterAcademy Council, a body comprised of the national academies of the world. In fact, in 2007 that organization won the Nobel Prize for its assessment work. This institution is a nonpartisan and technically extraordinarily sound organization.

The Republican majority has already voted to prevent the EPA from using funds to regulate greenhouse gases. Now we're being asked to defund the work of international scientists to learn about the threat.

Now, the assumption, I assume, is that there is no threat and, therefore, let's not study it. I think that is not a wise assumption. This is a very shortsighted proposal to cut these funds. It's like putting our heads in the sand, denying the science, and then stopping the scientists from working because they might come to a different conclusion than the Republican majority's ideology in believing that there is no such problem and therefore we don't need to know about it or do anything about it. If we're not going to do anything here at home, let's at least work internationally to understand the threat and to deal with other countries to combat it.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I don't understand how the gentleman from Missouri can say that this is a nefarious group of people. After all, these are people who are scientists, who've won the Nobel Prize for their scientific activities.

I used to think that people from Missouri were from the Show-Me State. Now I gather what this gentleman from Missouri is suggesting is ``I don't want to know about it.'' I don't think that is what the position ought to be of the United States Congress. Let's learn the facts and then decide what to do about it but not stop trying to know what the science is behind the global threats.

The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer).

The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes appeared to have it.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WAXMAN. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

I want to tell you a story. On December 22, 2008, in Kingston, Tennessee, a coal ash impoundment structurally failed, and they released 5.4 million cubic yards of toxic sludge. This sludge blanketed the Emory River and 300 acres of surrounding land, creating a Superfund site that could cost up to $825 million to remediate. If this coal ash had been stored safely, this tragedy would never have happened. The wastes are dangerous. What EPA has tried to do is to make sure that the hazardous waste is disposed of safely to protect the health of communities.

And I find it somewhat amazing to hear the author of this amendment say that EPA is acting on an ideological agenda. How ideological do you have to be to act when you have an example of a terrible amount of coal ash poisoning areas and threatening drinking water? Is that ideological when they want to make sure that it's safeguarded and disposed of in a proper way? That's not ideological. That's the kind of thing we want EPA to do. So I would urge opposition to this amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 10 minutes.

Mr. WAXMAN. I yield myself 2 minutes.

This amendment would deny the Consumer Product Safety Commission the implementation of a searchable public consumer safety information database. Now this database was part of a bill that passed this House by 424-1. We required a database, and CPSC is ready to release this database. It's based on similar successful databases run at the present time by the Food and Drug Administration and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. It would allow consumers to report harms associated with consumer products and then to research risks associated with these particular products.

This is exactly what the American people want. They want information. They have a right to know. And, in fact, every opinion poll indicates this.

This amendment is a ``keep the consumers in the dark'' amendment. Parents want to know if a toy is dangerous. This amendment would take away their right to go to a database that would give them this information.

Now the claims against the database are pretty shocking. The manufacturers say, Well, this is going to be a problem because they're going to put things on the database that are trade secrets or inaccurate.

This is simply not the case. There is a safeguard. In fact, there are safeguards after safeguards to protect manufacturers.

The statute provides more procedural safeguards than any other public database at a Federal agency. Anonymous complaints are not allowed, only safety-related information will be included. Businesses get to see every report of harm before it is placed in the database. They have an opportunity to correct inaccurate information and to provide their own comments.

I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, in my last 30 seconds, let me just say this is an issue of the public's right to know. Let this database be available to them so they don't go buy a toy that they could have checked out on a Web site and found out that it was poisonous.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, you would think that EPA is about to regulate these fine particulate matter for the very first time, but that's not accurate.

PM10 is already regulated because EPA had to set a standard to protect the public health. These small particulates can get into your lungs, and they can cause increased respiratory symptoms in children, and can cause premature death in people with heart and lung disease, so EPA sets a standard to protect the public health.

What this amendment would do would be to stop EPA from setting a standard that might be tighter if the science dictates it.

Once they set a standard, EPA does not regulate. EPA leaves it to the States to decide how they will meet that standard. EPA is already talking to the stakeholders in the agricultural communities.

In the past, the vast majority of States has not required farms to take any action that would require reductions of this pollution. Instead, States have typically reduced particles from industrial processes. California and Arizona are addressing agricultural pollution by incorporating USDA-approved conservation measures in some areas.

EPA does not target monitoring in rural areas. They are reaching out to their stakeholders. EPA should not be stopped by this amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source