mr. waxman? >> mr. waxman votes aye. mr. chairman, there were 19 ayes and 34 nays. >> 19 ayes, 3434 n nays. >> correct. >> not agreed to. >> i would like the record to indicate the brocaw vote had i been here i would have voted no. i had a constituent, but had i been here, i would have voted no, please. >> fine. >> the vote tallied stays the same, but we will note that for the record. the dingle amendment is not agreed to. the next is the eschew amendment. the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. barton votes no. mr. sterns votes no. mr. whitfield votes no. mr. shim kiss votes no. mr. pits votes no. mrs. bono mac votes no. mr. walden votes no. mr. terry votes no. mr. rogers votes no. mr. mi rick votes no. mr. sullivan votes no. mr. murphy votes no. mr. burgess votes no. mrs. blackburn votes no. mr. bill brick e bray votes no. mr. bass votes no. mr. gingry votes no. mr. skalis votes no. mr. lada votes no. mr. mcmorris rogers votes no. mr. harper votes no. mr. lance. mr. lance votes no. mr. cassidy votes no. mr. guthrie votes no.

mr. waxman's opening statement was very good, as was mr. shimkus's, which i wasn't here to hear, but i did read. with that, i have a minute left if you want to yield. >> let me reclaim that time and look to chairman emeritus to see if you would like to use the remainder of your time. >> most briefly, mr. chairman, thank you. i want to welcome our two witnesses and our panels today, secretary beers and wulf. i want to note that it is being conducted in a bipartisan fashion, something which merits high praise around this place. having said that, i look forward to the results of the hearing today. i would note that i have a number of these facilities in my district. and when they let go, as one did not long back, it causes lots of excitement. and it can cause significant numbers of casualties and enormous hardships on the communities in which the facility might exist. so your labors and your leadership, mr. chairman, are much appreciated. and i look forward to the hearing going forward in the spirit in which it has begun, and in the hope that

mr. waxman and mr. schwartz are going to speak. i think we'll start with mr. waxman. >> once. there. it's on. >> it's on? >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i think senator kyl just made a very persuasive case that we've got to deal with this problem. and from my point of view, we've got to deal with it in a permanent way, because we have a flawed payment system. and we have gone for ten years with simple patches on the system. it's temporary, but it's a flaw payment formula which is disruptive to the program, providers, and the beneficiaries alike. and it gets worse every year. so we should take this opportunity to protect seniors by solving the problem permanently in the conference, not cobble together another short-term fix that only makes the long-term problem harder to address. i was quite taken by senator kyl's statement about how much it would have cost early on, and how these patches are about as much as it would have taken to fix the problem permanently. and that's -- that's what we're going to find ourselves doing if we keep digging this hole and falling right in it. i kn

mr. waxman has the benefits standard. his notion of legislation, apparently, is you decide a piece of legislation depending on who benefits. >> mr. chairman, i want to make a point of order. i know the rules on the house floor would not permit the gentleman to make such a personal attack. members motivations or actions. i'm happy to answer it when i got my turn. but if i answer it and don't have enough time for questions to these witnesses, they'll say i didn't ask them enough questions. i think it's inappropriate. a make a point of order that the words be stricken. >> mr. waxman -- >> will the gentleman hold for one minute? >> certainly. >> unless the gentleman wants to withdraw those comments, then he can go on. >> i'm happy to withdraw so we can proceed this morning. that's fine. i'm happy to with drought comments. >> i withdraw my point of order. >> appreciate the gentleman. >> certainly. we have now this standard that is being applied by folks across the aisle. folks across the aisle have -- we try to decide whether

mr. waxman said he will go now. i would like to recognize mr. waxman. >> thank you for being here today. and thank you for your out standing leadership that you have provided to the environmental protection agency. under your leadership, epa is making our air safer to breathe and our water safer to drink and you are doing so in a way that will strengthen our economy and create jobs. congress, should be your partner in these efforts, but since republicans took control last january. the house of representatives, has tried to under mine your efforts every step of the way. the epa budget represents a small portion of the overall spending. under the president's proposal for fiscal year 2013. epa funding is less than one quarter of 1% of the federal budget and epa shares over 40% of these funds with the states and tribes to help implement federal laws and achieve national goals. but today we will hear that your budget is too big and that we cannot afford investeding in clean air and clean water. these attacks are part of au auto -- part of a broader ag

mr. waxman? >> thank you, mr. chairman. as i understand the amendment that is before us is to ask that there be a study about the safety transporting tar sands, sludge that commonly diluted or forced through this particular pipeline. the government agencies involved had never done this bringment i think it's reasonable to request it and to understand what everyone is undertaking additional risks. i don't think we're talking about a huge delay in time. i strongly support the amendment. i'd be happy to yield to the gentle lady if she needs more time. >> no, i appreciate it. i think that in the haste to somehow jam this thing through that we're really overlooking some very serious things. to those that are totally committed to the pipeline being built, i think you undermine your case by leapfrogging over very important by leap frogging very important things. i mean that sincerely, at the end of the day people hold their own views on these thins. i think this is an undermining process. i don't feel a good feeling about this. i

mr. waxman, today we have two panels of witnesses. those of you on the first panel, if you will come forward, that is ms. smith, who is chief regulatory for army corp of engineers and mr. mike poole, deputy director of u.s. land management shs department management, department of the interior. we appreciate you both being here and we will ask each of you to give a five-minute opening statement, and at the end of that time, questions asked. i will point out that we have been told that there will be five or six votes on the house floor somewhere around 11:0 0 or so, we will proceed as long as we can and then we will vote and then come back. thank you all for being with us this morning, at this time, ms. smith, i would like to recognize you for five minutes for the purpose of an opening statement and be sure to turn your mike tonight -- microphone on, you are now recognized. >> thank you, i'm chief of the the regulatory program for the u.s. army corp of engineer, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the corp's regulatory authority und

mr. waxman will be coming back shortly after that. we have two votes that we'll continue to keep pending as rolled. there are three? not two. and so what i'd like to do, i'm still told that we are expecting votes about 1:30, 1:40, so what i'd like to do, i know the gentlelady from california has an amendment and the gentleman from pennsylvania has an amendment, so this will have to wait until mr. waxman comes back, and maybe we can roll all the votes together. but if not, we will start with the gentlelady from california's amendment for debate and see where we go from there. the gentlelady asks that her amendment be offered. we ask that her consent be considered as read and the staff will distribute the amendment, and the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes in support of her amendment. >> thank you. >> is is it working now? there it is. we were worried about the two-hour rule earlier today, but we're well beyond that. thank you for recognizing, mr. chairman, and i want to raise a subject that we worked on and i want to thank you

mr. waxman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. today we once again consider legislation to approve the keystone xl tar sands pipeline. this legislation exempts one pet project from every federal and state permitting requirement. yes, one project would be exempted from every review. now is that a way to approve an important and controversial pipeline? i hardly think that's the case. the fact is that the legislation we're considering today is an earmark that benefits just one project. you remember the republicans saying they were against earmarks? well, not when it helps their friends. and the arguments for the project just does not stand up. the scrutiny. this tar sands pipeline won't boost our energy independence or lower gas prices or create the inflated jobs being promised. why have the republicans introduced bill after bill to short-circuit the permitting process on keystone xl? they say it will make the country more energy independent. that's a myth. oil prices are set by the global markets. this pipeline will have no impact o

mr. waxman will be postponed until approximately 12:30. mr. markey has some questions for counsel. >> it's just two questions. the first question to counsel is looking at the amendment when an american plastics company buys oil biteman or refined petroleum products, has the oil, pitchmen entered into domestic commerce -- >> the end of that clause -- >> has it entered into american commerce when an american plastic company buys -- >> yes. >> has it entered into american commerce? >> yes. >> it has. second question. now, once that oil bit u men or refined petroleum product is turned into a plastic, will it ever be turned back into oil or has it been finally disposed of, is it no longer oil in order? has there been a final disposition of it? >> i think that's the part that he was unclear looking at for instance it can be if that's -- i think it's unclear -- >> if it's put into a plastic -- if it's put into steel, is not then finally disposed of? >> no that, could be recycled or transferred to use for another product. >> but can it be turned into

mr. waxman. mr. waxman votes aye. mr. dingle. mr. dingle votes no. mr. marky. mr. marky votes aye. mr. towns. mr. towns votes aye. mr. paloan? >> mr. paloan votes aye. mr. rush votes aye. mr. engle votes aye. >> mr. green votes no. mr. duget votes no. mr. caps votes aye. mr. doyle. mr. doyle votes no. mr. shekowsky votes aye. mr. congal ez votes no. mr. insly votes no. ms. baldwin. mr. ross. mr. ross

mr. waxman, if you want to briefly and then i'll go back over to mr. upton. >> thank you, mr. chairman. members, in 1990 we passed a law saying deal with these toxic air pollutants. took 21 years for epa to come up with a rule in 2011. there was a lot of controversy about this rule and epa is hearing from the industries and members of congress are hearing from the industries. and a lot of what members are hearing about no longer valid. mr. brady talked about wood chips not being allowed to be burned. well, that's been changed. the senator baucus and senator b grasso talked about rules being changed and standard being changed. it's the first time standard for waste incinerators and boilers are being scheduled. we've never had any standard. epa wrote to the senate on january 18th that the epa can and will use legally available and longstanding tools to address compliance concerns that boilers and incinerators subject to the rules may have as a result of the court decision and they're still talking to the industry, revised won't even finalized until april or may so that the argument is tha

mr. waxman's question goes to, and that is, has nebraska told transcanada or whatever particular entity with the authority that the sovereign would have? >> the state's authority for eminent domain would be given to it by the constituents of that state. and then it is the states to then delegate it or give it as appropriate that authority that it has. >> but who be making the determination on whether to appropriate someone's property, whether it's beneath the ground or above the ground? it still would be a private enterprise, would it not? >> i actually think that -- i'm not well versed on the specifics of nebraska law. but i think it goes through a process if there was a particular area or right of way that the pipeline operator was looking to exercise authorities related to imminent domain, there is a process involved with that. >> and do you know if that process has been completed in nebraska in order for transcanada to be making the representations to mr. thompson, the property owner? and i will yield to mr. terry because he may know the answer to this. >> it's in state statute. the proc

mr. waxman had. i know in your testimony mcafee labs predicts an increase on tax on smart phones and mobile devices in the future. it's my understanding your company had partnered with a research facility at carnagie-mellon university lab which was in pittsburgh, the district i represent, about how businesses and employees handle mobile devices security. apparently this study showed that most of lost and stolen mobile devices creates some of the biggest concern for businesses about 40% of the organization surveyed had lost or stolen devices and half of those devices contain business critical data. further, about 50% of mobile users that were studied. we found out they store their passwords and pin numbers and other numbers on their mobile devices which i am completely guilty of. i'm going to erase as soon as this hearing is over. seems to me that one way to tackle this -- one way to tackle this is to make sure that the devices that employees are using are secure in the first place so that if an emplo

mr. waxman for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, for calling on becoming more and portly, for holding this hearing to examine the implementation by the department of homeland security of the chemical facility into i-terrorism program or standards that are called c-fats. this is intended to address the threat of terrorism toward asians facilities. we will hear testimony about successes come and we will also hear about the many challenges. the program was established in 2006. almost six years later it is clear -- clear implementation has stumbled because of serious challenges and limitations in the program. secretary piers will testify about a detailed report that he received in november of last year. this report takes the form of a memorandum come in anddh dhs provided it to the committee. it paints a start picture of this committee. according to the memory of the cover the program has been plagued by personal issues come up budget issues come and statutory limitations. the challenges described in the memo are serious and m

mr. waxman is recognized. mr. waxman: i'm pleased to yield to the ranking member of the energy subcommittee, the gentleman from illinois, four minutes. mr. rush. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for four minutes. mr. rush: i want to thank the ranking member for this time and thank him for his leadership on this issue. mr. speaker, i find it remarkable that we are here today debating a bill that essentially a regular lair to -- regulatory earmark for just one company and that company is called transcan ka. -- transcanada. we are debating whether to build a pipeline through the heart of our country without allowing the appropriate state and federal agencies to completely conduct their due diligence and their oversight responsibilities. mr. speaker, this legislative gift wrapped in fine gift wrapping to transcanada on behalf of my republican colleagues will completely circumvent the state department and the other state and federal agencies those agencies will have the -- who have the know-how and e

mr. waxman has the benefit standard. his notion of legislation apparently is that you decided piece of legislation depending on who benefits. mr. chairman, i want to make a point of order to i know the rules of the house floor would not permit the german to make such a personal attack -- >> i apologize -- >> members motivations or actions. i'm happy to answer when i get my turn, but if i answered it and don't have enough time for questions to these witnesses he was i didn't ask them enough question. i think it's inappropriate. and i make a point order that his words be stricken. >> mr. waxman, i -- in with a gentleman hold for one minute? >> certainly. >> unless the jump and wants to withdraw those comments, he can go on the unhappy to withdraw them so we can proceed this morning. that's fine. i'm happy to withdraw the comment. >> i withdraw my point of order. >> certainly. we have now the standard as apparently been applied old across the aisle. folks across the aisle, we try decide whether their personal data come whet

mr. waxman has the benefit standard. his notion of legislation, apparently, is that you decide a piece of legislation depending on who benefits. >> i want to make a point of order. i know the rules on the house floor would not permit the gentleman to make such a personal attack. a member's motivations or actions, i am happy to answer it when i get my turn, but if i don't have enough time for questions of these witnesses, you will say i did not ask them enough questions. i think it is inappropriate and i make a point of order that the words be stricken. >> with the gentleman hold for one minute? >> certainly. >> unless the gentleman wants to withdraw the comments? >> i am happy to withdraw them so we can proceed. >> i withdraw my point of order. >> certainly. we have a standard that is being applied by folks across the aisle. we tried to decide if there is a personal benefit. if a person in order would not benefit. this is a $7 billion private investment. i watched this committee last year as we were debating and discussi

mr. waxman is recognized. >> mr. chairman, i support this amendment by our colleague mr. rush. it says -- simple amendment. congress will give transcanada this extraordinary legislative earmark to rubber-stamp their permit application but only on one condition and that is that they not -- that they commit to stop bullying american land owners and seizing their property through imminent domain. my colleagues may not be aware of the fact that transcanada has been using threats of imminent domain to force american land owners along the pipeline route to give up their property rights. transcanada has even taken land owners to court to cease their property rights through imminent domain even before receiving a permit to build the pipeline. last friday mr. rush pointed out that randy thompson a nebraska rancher testified that in the heartland many feel approval of this project would strip us of our individual property rights. transcanada is a foreign corporation. they've been trying to strong arm american citizens along this proposed path of the pipeline. they're telling property own

mr. waxman and mr. markey to find alternative fuel sources. but you don't join mr. markey in that endeavor either. when we say efficiency, cafe standard, you're not ever going to beat mr. markey on that. efficiency conservation, you're not going to be with mr. markey on that approximately alternatives, you're not going to be with mr. markey on ythld? >> my concern is we're regressing. we're going backwards rather than forward. and i know that you can say other countries may not follow our lead but that's not what should determine what we do in this country when we have the ability to be leaders. soap i think i won't be -- of course i won't vote for this amendment but i appreciate my colleague from massachusetts making a really important point that i think you'll be able too revert to in future testimony and hearings in this exact room years from now when you're trying to explain what didn't happen that you promised here . >> gentleman yields back. >> i want the counsel's opinion, does the markey amendment apply to crude oil and refined products or just refined produ

mr. waxman will be postponed until approximately 12:30 so mr.y has some questions. >> the first question to council is looking at the amendment when and americans plastics company buys oil or refined petroleum products has the oil or refined products entered into domestic commerce? >> welcome the end of that walls in the amendment -- >> has it entered into american commerce when an american plastics company buys the refined petroleum product? has it entered into the commerce? >> yes. >> second question. now, once the product is turned into the plastic would ever be turned back into oil and finally disposed of is it no longer oil in other words, has there been a final disposition of it? >> that is the part it is unclear looking for instance it can be if that's unclear -- benefit if it is put into plastic or steel is that not been finally disposed of? >> the plastic or steel could be recycled for instance. >> can be turned into oil again? >> no but whether or not --. >> it can be recycled into the classics but it cannot be recycled into wheel is t

mr. waxman and then mr. sarin and i think mr. van helen wants to say a word. >> i'll try to be brief on all of this. >> i was always worried about means testing the medicare premium. because it could become a piggybank. so we adopted a means testing premium in the affordable care act. that made some sense, because it was a way to raise money and you raised more money by asking upper income seniors under medicare to pay more for it. i was trying to figure out, chairman camp said, we all voted for this. well, we all voted for it, because we voted for means testing in the affordable care act for those of us who voted for the affordable care act. republicans didn't vote for that. but they voted in the house. for the house proposal. now, at what point does, do these things that we voted for become a piggybank? if we're going to increase the part b premium even more, republican proposal goes too far. in this issue of the tax increase, we're, let me give yog about. somebody who gets a, a tax credit is pretty low income. upper income don

mr. waxman for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. none of us are happy about this memo that came out last november showing how poorly this program is serving the american public. and this is a serious matter. it's a matter of national security from possible attacks by terrorists on chemical plants. i know all of us are concerned not just the people here in the congress but mr. beers and others in the administration, we have a stark and troubling picture but perhaps there's a silver lining, it seems that the department is taking the situation clearly. but i want to talk about congress's role, it's easy at a hearing like this after we get a report of a failure to beat up on the people running the program. but congress has a responsibility as well. this program was established at an appropriations bill, not a bill that came out of this committee, it was rider on

mr. waxman is going to lead off for us. >> mr. chairman, today we're considering an extraneous provision. it is not part of the major concerns before this group. and what it would do is allow our children to continue to be harmed by toxic mercury pollution. now mercury pollution is more serious than asthma, although asthma is related to this as well. this provision is known as the boiler mact rule. and i don't think it has any place in this bill. i want to review for the conferees one of the untold stories of this congress. over the past year, the house of representatives has relentlessly pursued the most anti-environmental agenda in history. we in the house have voted 191 times to weaken environmental protections, more than one in five of all recorded votes in the house in 2011 undermined the nation's environmental protections. these votes attacked the laws that american families depend on to provide clean air and clean water, protect our public lands and coastal waters. and the house even voted to deny the climate change is occu

mr. waxmans recognized. mr. waxman: i'm pleased to yield to the ranking member of the energy subcommittee, the gentleman from illinois, four minutes. mr. rush. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for four minutes. mr. rush: i want to thank the ranking member for is time and thank him for his leadership on this issue. mr. speaker, i find it remarkable that we are here today debating a bill that essentially a regular lair to -- regulatory earmark for just one company and that company is lled transcan ka. -- transcanada. we are debating whether to build a pipeline through the heart of our country without allowing the appropriate state and federal agencies to completely conduct their due diligence and their oversight responsibilities. mr. speaker, this legislative gift wrapped in fine gift wrapping to transcanada on behalf of my republican colleagues will completely circumvent the state department and the other state and federal agencies those agencies will have the -- who have the know-how and exper

mr. waxman for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, for calling on me and more importantly for holding this hearing to examine the implementation by the department of homeland security of the chemical facility anti-terrorism program or standards. the letters been made into cfats. this program is intended to address the threat of terrorism to the nation's chemical facilities. well, we'll hear testimony about the successes but we're also going to hear about the program's many challenges. the cfats program was established in 2006. now almost six years later, it's clear that implementation has stumbled because of serious challenges and limitations in the program. undersecretary beers will testify about a detailed report that he received in november

mr. waxman, for five minutes of questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. administrator jackson, the house republicans have urged you not to issue pending proposed new source performance standards under the clean air act to reduce carbon pollution from new power plants. they argue that the regulations will hurt the economy and are not necessary. i could not disagree more strongly. climate change is the greatest environmental threat we face. although the standards will have a modest impact on the overall problem, they are critical as a first step in tackling carbon pollution. they'll boost the economy by providing certainty to the power sector allowing investment decisions to be made and new generation to be built. you're an engineer, a practical problem solver. does it make any sense to pretend climate change isn't happening and hope we can deal with it later? >> no, sir, it doesn't. >> denying the science and the facts i think is indefensible and putting off action until later is utterly irresponsible. according to the highly regarded international agency,

mr. waxman referenced was actually only the construction jobs during the phase of the construction, but i know having been a small business owner for more than two decades that when you get involve fld a big project, it's nots -- i mean, we were just in the radio business, but, you know if i bought a transmitter, somebody had to build that thing, and i had to hire an engineer to install it. and i had to go through a lot of other efforts. there were a lot of other indirect jobs associated, and i think that's maybe where the difference of opinion here is on the jobs. if you only looked at just exactly the, you know, several thousands of jobs that would be will for two years in an industry that's been devastated over the last three years, i'd take whatever jobs we could, and if there's no environmental impact on the federal lands, and doesn't appear there would be, i think we can make the change, mr. terry recommended to deal with the issue that ms. gaffney-smith if we change this bill to allow you to continue to have your statutory authority that wouldn't be a problem. would it? >> no. we'd

mr. waxman is next for five minutes for questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and anybody that wants to respond to this question, what do the growing use of smartphones and tablets represent? >> they are just small computers. they have the same vulnerablities that the other machines have that you use. so when you think about the power that is in your hand, you now have theability two followed, it enables the enemy, if it's not secured propertily. it enables an adversary to use it to get into your network. i'll simplify it a lot. peep want to use the home device at work and once the -- they can launch an attack into the enterprise network because companies are letting people use the small devices. there are technologies to lock it down. we do it and do it worldwide. but you are looking at a massive explosion of the small devices. these devices leverage the cloud because they do not have the processing power that the big machine does. so you have to watch that data at rest and shared resources, your personal information is all over that phone, pictures of your fr

mr. waxman was, you know, we were given a pretty good signal that things were going well. small problems, but nothing major. one of the questions i asked you was about the high-risk tiering process and the reasons for the drop in the number of those facility tiers. at that time, i was not aware of any mistiering problem. were you? >> no, i was not, sir. >> if not, when did you first learn about the tiering problem? >> i first learned about the tiering problem in the beginning of june of this last year. >> was it the earliest time, to your knowledge, that dshs personnel discovered that some facilities had been mistiered, was the month you had given? in other words, was there other folks within the department that knew that this tiering process was all messed up? >> there was an indication in may of 2010 that there might be a problem with respect to tiering. the individuals within the office looked at the problem and felt that they had resolved the problem and informed people up the chain of command. i did not know that there was a problem at that point in time. i was not in

mr. waxman. >> the house republicans have urged you not issue pending proposed new source performance standards. they argue that the regulations will hurt the economy and are not necessary. i could not disagree more strongly. climate change is the greatest environmental threat we face. though the standards will have a modest impact on the overall problem, they're critical as a first step in tackling carbon pollution. they'll boost the economy, allowing investment decisions to be made. you're an engineer. a practical problem solver. does it make sense to pretend that climate change is not happening and hope we can deal with it later? >> no, sir, it doesn't. >> denying the science and facts i think is indefensible. putting off action until later is utterly irresponsible. according to the international agency, if the world doesn't change course of climate now, within ten years, we will have built enough high carbon energy infrastructure to lock our planet into a devastating amount of global warming. making smart choices when building new infrastructure is precisely what the regulation about? isn't

mr. waxman and congressman cohen and connolly and welsh will introduce a bill to require that if this pipeline is permitted, the oil will stay here to benefit americans. if we are going to go to the extreme lengths of legislating the construction of an environmentally destructive pipeline, to benefit a canadian company, we should at least are sure that we in the united states can realize the energy security and consumer benefits that we've been told the project will bring. let's play it straight about the straits of hormuz. without my bill, this pipeline will not do a thing to enhance the security of our country, of our brave men and women stationed all over the world for purposes of protecting our fossil fuel interests. we need a bill if it does pass that guaranteeses the oil from this pipeline stays here in the united states. the ceo of transcanada sat right there and said he would not support that legislation. that's all we have to know about our relationship with this transcanada company. this oil is to be exported around the world. not to keep prices lower here in the united states. i yie

mr. waxman wants to speak. >> why doesn't we do quick closings from the house democrats and do the senators want to make a quick closing comment? why don't we do one last round of quick closing comments. senator baucus.

mr. waxman spoke to that earlier has provided states with the authority to give extra assistance in the form of extended loan terms and low are interest rates or principal forgiveness to disadvantaged communities and i live in a disadvantaged community and you know that very well. because of that the srs has been an esession source of financing for small and disadvantaged community, water systems that are unable to finance infrastructure projects at market rates. but until the passage of recovery act, states had complete discretion to decide whether to exercise their authority and provide disadvantaged communities with such assistance. 14 states had decided not to provide the assistance. an additional six states reserve less than 4% of their funds over the life of the program for these disadvantaged communities. recovery act funding of the srf made a significant difference for millions of americans and you know that record very well. in fact, according to epa, recovery act funds provided through the drinking water srf brought 6,093 drinking water assistance serving over 48 million americans

mr. waxman wants to say a word. >> i will try to be brief. i was always worried about the medicare premium. it could become a piggy bank. we adopted a means tested premium in the affordable care act. that made sense because it was a way to raise money by asking upper income surged -- seniors to pay more. i was trying to figure out, we all voted for this. we voted for means testing and the affordable care act. republicans did not vote for that. they voted in the house for the proposal. at what point do these things that we voted for becoming a piggy bank? if we are going to increase the premium even more, the republican proposal goes too far. this issue of the tax increase, let me give you an example of what we're talking about. somebody who gets a tax credit is pretty low-income. the upper income does not get a tax credit. the lower income people do. suddenly you have a job and you get a bonus. that bonus pushes you to a point where when you look how much money you actually made, you are over the amount for the tax credit that you got. it is

mr. waxman, and the ranking member on energy and commerce, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. waxman: madam speaker, with two minutes i'd like to ask unanimous consent that i be able to revise and extend my remarks and insert extraneous material. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. waxman: with those remarks. i'll vote for this bill but i do so with reservations. we should have done better in meeting our responsibilities to the american people. there are important provisions in this legislation that will do a lot of good for families and our economy. we are extending the payroll tax reduction for millions of families, extending unemployment insurance, ensuring the doctors serving seniors will be paying for their services through the end of the year. and we are making spectrum available for new innovations in wireless communications. while these are provisions i support, in the conference report there are significant missed opportunities and poor choices that affect federal wor

mr. waxman, for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, the topic that we're discussing is the keystone pipeline. but i must say the republicans are like keystone cops in the way thai handled -- thai handled this whole issue. they have been going way out on a limb to get this pipeline approved, even to the point where a tax cut for middle class americans and unemployment benefits and money for physicians was, a bill was held up to make sure that there was a provision to give special treatment to the keystone pipeline. but these brilliant people put in a provision that says the president has to decide the issue within a certain period of time. they forgot to tell him how he had to decide it, and the president said i want to get all the facts first, and i'm not going to approve it in this time frame. so now they've come up with a bill. this is a remarkable bill. this bill says, and i wish people would read it, it says this -- the pipeline in this bill is the keystone xl pipeline, no question about it. and they are exempted from rev

mr. waxman, and the ranking member on energy and commerce, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. waxman: madam speaker, with two minutes i'd like to ask unanimous consent that i be able to revise and extend my remarks and insert extraneous material. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. waxman: with those remarks. i'll vote for this bill but i do so with reservations. we should have done better in meeting ouresponsibilities to the amerin people. there are important provisions in this legislation that will do a lot of good for families and our economy. we are extending the payroll tax reduction for millions of families, extending unemployment insurance, ensuring the doctors serving seniors will be paying for their services through the en of the year. and we are making spectrum available for new innovations in wireless communications. while these are provisions i support, in the conference report there are significant missed opportunities and poor choices that affect federal workers