waxman: mr. chairman, at this point i want to yield five minutes to the dean of the house, the chairman emeritus of our committee, the gentleman from michigan, mr. dingell. the chair: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for five minutes. mr. dingell: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the chair: without objection. mr. dingell: i rise to salute the gentleman from florida and to express to him my affection and respect and good wishes as he leaves the congress. and also to my good friend, the chairman of the committee, mr. upton. i would observe, however, if anybody were to put a monument like this to me, i would bend this cane of mine over his head. this is perhaps one of the sorriest things i have seen done. it is like the mule. it has neither pride of heritage nor hope of posterity. it isn't going anywhere. it accomplishes precisely nothing. . it has findings which are totally unrelated to fact and doesn't mean anything and doesn't help us with the problems before us.

waxman: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in house report 112-680 offered by mr. waxman of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 788, the gentleman from california, mr. waxman, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: mr. chairman, this bill is 80 pages of one reckless assault after another on public health and environmental protections. it is probably the single worst anti-environmental bill and the most anti-environment house of representatives in history. the bill continues a republican war on science and head in the sand approach to climate change, which is the biggest environmental challenge of our time. this bill attempts to legislate away the scientific findings by the environmental protection agency, that emissions of carbon pollution endanger public health and welfare by contributing to climate chan

waxman: mr. chairman and my colleagues, i oppose this amendment. it would make a terrible bill even worse. our nation's environmental laws are founded on cooperative federalism. this is how it works. the federal government sets minimum standards to ensure every american has a basic level of protection so no one is forced to breathe dirty air or to drink dirty water. then the states decide how to meet those standards or set strocker standards if they choose. the states also implement the programs they adopt. finally, if a state fails to act, e.p.a. can step in and do the job itself. this approach has worked well for over 40 years. it means that there is a healthy give-and-take between the states and the environmental protection agency. the states receive federal funds, and they run their own programs, but e.p.a. has the tools to encourage the states to do more when necessary. before congress adopted the clean air act in 1970 and the clean water act in 1972, both signed by president nixon, it was u

84 i don't think anyone envisioned what was coming in terms of biopharmaceuticals and so the hatch-waxman act in 84 addressed traditional pharmaceuticals and what we need is a comparable regulatory process in legislation to do the same thing. >> is it that much of a distinction between a biopharmaceutical and a nonbiopharmaceutical? >> there really is. >> so you could exact that kind of reaction to it o or -- it's a regulation? you can only deal with tra dition additional drugs? and these are new drugs. they are also very expensive drugs. and you need support for $5,000 a month to treat colon cancer with the drug used to treat a judge nark condition that costs you a lot annually. >> rem cade -- >> rem cade used for severe rheumatoid arthritis. $5,000 monthly. >> 3,500 a year. still a lot of money. >> this is astronomical. >> yes, it is. >> and no relief for that? is there an insurance policy for that? >> most insurers covover biopharmaceuticals as part of the drug benefit. it's the fastest growing component of drug costs. >> suppose there is for these -- for these biopharmaceuticals you j

waxman are still there. but most of the principles have retired. and the industry is significantly different. for all intents and purposes, there was not an internet in 1996, to speak of. and cellphone were big boxes, big box phones and stuff. the ipad was delayed figment of somebody's imagination. -- was still a figment of somebody's imagination. there is nobody in america that doesn't have some sort of a mobile home cook -- mobile telecommunications adevice if they want them. when there are more cellular phones then there are hard line phones, the world has changed. you can make a strong intellectual case that we need to have a revisit on all of the telecommunications acts. we are still functioning in regulatory laws from the 1930's. >> it took a long time to get an energy tunnel through. finally, something that pass. but everything had changed in the industry and had dealt with a whole bunch of different issues. how hard is it for congress to hit a moving target like telecom and two legislation that might in the end do more harm than good? >> it

, most republicans on the health care issue, the obama administration and people like congressman waxman and dingell in the house, you know, they really want universal coverage. republicans didn't think coverage was a big issue, we thought cost was. so if you don't agree on problem identification, you're not going to agree on problem solution. and the country is, you know, when the country gets consensus, then the congress can find consensus. so i'm -- the next congress, you know, on the bigger, some of the bigger social issues, we almost have to begin to try to define solutions. and on telecommunications it's not in a crisis, but you could make a really good case this would be the time to reform some of the basic structure. >> host: representative barton, when it comes to another issue that's been out there for the past year, so cybersecurity, bring us up-to-date, if you would, on your thought process and what you think about the president perhaps doing an executive order. >> guest: well, cybersecurity i give the intelligence committee in the house, the chairman's mike rodgers of michig

waxman -- has been linked to the lockerbie bombing. >> they are chanting for justice and revenge. the libyan prime minister called him the right arm of old regime. the army chief of staff sent the prisoner was confident he would have a fair trial. libya can still be chaotic. in the violence before just a year ago, he slipped away. , nowd the colonel's son also in custody, awaiting trial. in 2009, states welcomed by the convicted lockerbie bomber when he was in a scottish jail. he is believed to be one of the masterminds behind the attack. gaddafi went from a pariah to the new and useful ally after a deal to come in from the cold. the intelligence chief was the key figure in the security cooperation that followed a. >> he would know a huge amount of what was going on. they have report coming out tomorrow. the involvement of the u.s. and also the u.k., sending them back to libya where many were tortured. that information needs to come around. >> he was one of gaddafi's closest associates. he also presumably knows a lot about dealings with the intelligence service in london and washi

waxman, for their essential help. at a time when so many americans are concerned about the lack of bipartisanship in congress, this legislation is an example where members of the house energy and commerce committee work together as we so often do on critical health care issues. this legislation will reach the president's desk. this is the way congress should work. i give special recognition to congresswoman eshoo for her tireless efforts not only in support of this legislation, her legislation, but for her advocacy throughout her public life in support of cancer research and education. . i thank senator whitehouse on his important work on this issue and my staff for all the work they have done on this important legislation. i thank lisa swazey for her support in the pancreatic cancer issue. on a personal note, when my twin brother and i were 12 years old, we lost our mother to cancer after a valiant three-year battle. i dedicate whatever modest work i have done on this issue in her memory. i urge my colleagues to supp

and most republicans on health care issue, the obama administration and the people like congressman waxman and dingell in the house, they really want a universal coverage, the republicans didn't think the coverage was a big issue they thought the cost was we are not going to agree on the problem solution and the country -- when the country gets a consensus the congress can find the consensus. on some of the bigger social issues we have to try to begin to find solutions in the telecommunications it's not in a crisis you could make a really good case this would be the time to reform the basic structure. >> when it comes to another issue that's been out there the past year so cybersecurity during as of today if you would on your thought process and what you think about the president being an executive order. >> for cybersecurity, i give the intelligence committee and in the house the german mike rogers and michigan, he's done an excellent job of trying to identify the problems and put together a solution matrix. but where i think the sires security hasn't been quite as robust as it needs to b

waxman. mr. waxman: thank you very much for yielding. i certainly won't object to this unanimous consent request, but i do want to point out that we here in washington ought to be doing our job. we have our nation's urgent priorities. we need to increase jobs, strengthen our economy, prevent the fiscal cliff, protect medicare from cuts, address our long-term debt. we should be fighting for the middle class, not preserving tax breaks for oil companies and millionaires. we are out of session for this campaign in the earliest time ever. and for that reason, i will not object and yield back my time. mr. van hollen: mr. speaker, i withdraw my reservation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman withdraws his reservation. does the gentleman from california have an amendment? mr. lewis: i would ask unanimous consent -- the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. lewis of california. strike all after the enacting clause and insert a new text. mr. lewis: i ask unanimous consent that reading of

waxman from california. all of us, all of us have worked together so diligently to make this happen and thank you so very much. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from california. mrs. bono mack: i reserve the balance of my time. i have no further speakers. mr. butterfield: i have no further speakers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. mr. butterfield: i have no further speakers. i will close by simply reiterating what i said the last three or four minutes. thanks good bill. we have bipartisan -- this is a good bill. we have bipartisan support for this bill. it has been expedited to the house floor. i ask my colleagues to join with us and get it passed and let's get it enacted into law. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from california. mrs. bono mack: thank you, mr. speaker. in closing i just would like to say that

new york democrats, we talked to henry waxman and barney frank, and they said, listen, netanyahu is injecting in the presidential campaign and needs to butt out. >> i think with this bump in the road comment, if i'm the obama campaign, i'm chalking this up as a cautionary thing for the debates. it could be a turning point in the debate. just coach him to be careful in his responses. i think the president looked tired in a lot of the interview with "60 minutes." he has to be careful how he frames these things. >> he can emphasize the fact that he was talking about a road. the question was whether the recent eventsen events in the middle east had made him think twice about his previous support for the arab spring. and so if he can portray this as, you know, a terrible event, but on the way to a good goal, that may be his way out. >> greta: has he been engaged in trying to solve these problems or he has been a spectator president? >> i don't think he's been a spectator. i think he's engaged, meeting with his advisors on these things. i don't think it's a question of the white house not caring ab

the waxman marquee bill passed by seven votes. in the senate, lindsey graham had once been the co-sponsored of a similar cap bill. he even argued for the need to reduce carbon emission. >> our country doesn't have a vision on carbon. we need one, and we need to lead the world rather than follow the world on carbon pollution. >> ultimately, lindsay graham did what nearly every republican and his cohort has done, to conveniently forget his previous beliefs and commit himself to opposing any and all major initiative that is bore the president's mark. so cap in trade died. all of this was before the republicans took over the house in 2010. since then things have only gotten worse. the record of republican opposition and obstruction is legion at this point. the record number of filibusters, the unprecedented foot dragging on judicial and executive nominees, and, of course, the explicit threat to provoke a possible new financial crisis by holding the nation's full faith and credit hostage in pursuit of a savage austerity agenda. in fact

we just have to have whistleblower protection bill that that is congressman waxman has pointed out, thecongress is on vacation when it comes to the big issues. the president has asked the congress to immediately extend the middle-class tax cuts, tax relief or 100% of the american people up to the first $250,000 of income and 98% of the people get full tax relief along with the overwhelming number of small businesses. in fact 97% would get tax relief. the position the robins have taken is that unless people like mitt romney or companies like bain capital get tax relief nobody in the country i guess gets tax relief. the president has also called upon the congress to take up the jobs bill. that jobs bill has been sitting before the congress for over one year now. we submitted it last september and calls for major new investment in our nation's infrastructure, and obviously the needs are out there if you look at our aging infrastructure. we have over 14% unemployment in the construction industry so this is a win-win. and finally we have these across-the-board meat axe cuts taking place. the

assessment on reflection 2349 wake of -- in the wake of the financial crisis when he testified before hen waxman's committee in the house, he said, and i'll quote him here: i made a mistake in presuming that the self-interest of organizations was best capable of protecting their shareholders. >> he, he should have amended that statement, i made a mistake by not doing what i knew when i was a young man but forgot when i came to the federal reserve, and that is have the dollar backed by gold. we never would have had these excesses in the crisis in the first place. [applause] >> 30 seconds. >> one last question. do you acknowledge the existence of situations in which private actors' incentives lead them to act in ways that are in conflict with the public interest? >> depending on how you define the public interest. if somebody commits fraud, you don't need new -- >> here's the example i had in mind. [inaudible conversations] >> sorry? [laughter] >> is it quick? >> society decides to invest hundreds of millions in a computer program that will execute stock trades just seconds more quickly than existin

henry waxman a congressman from california was the lawmaker that basically prized this information fromhe found upwards of 50,000 people recruited on what jack refers to moral waivers which are waivers given to persistent criminals or felons who want to serve. now -- >> whoa, whoa. it's very important that we don't exaggerate this. there is a significant number of waivers that are issued, but a very small number of them are for persistent criminals. the large proportion of them are for waivers for minor offenses. having said all that, i'd like to see everybody in my service have a clean record. but, of course, that's not going to be the case. >> colonel, is this sort of a necessary evil because it is a volunteer military. in other words, you have to take what you can get? >> well, there's a certain truth to that. any society that wants to defend itself with an extremely small number of people or a larger number of people but is not willing to serve itself is looking for trouble. and we look for trouble for the past decade as we're trying to fight wars in southwest asia but without a dra

after yesterday's pro forma session, democratic congressman chris hollen and henry waxman called on congressresume legislative work. we will look at that. >> we tried on the house floor to raise the fact that we are in session to do minor things when we should be here doing the major things. people want jobs and have to reduce the deficit and avoid the fiscal cliff. this has been the most unproductive session in congress in all the years and decades that i have been a member. we have veterans benefits that will not be increased unless congress acts, we have people waiting for the government to do its job and it is disgraceful that we went home without doing the things that need to be done. we left for the election campaign at the earliest time in memory. the could have stayed here longer and we would call the republicans to bring this back so we can to the nation's business. the republicans have been extremely anti-environmental, hostile to a lot of the women's legislation, they have harmed the middle-class, poll last year and a half has been simply postures and get all the work that is to b

the next was seth waxman, 60 arguments. the next was floyd abrams, who was a paltry 30, something like that. then i found my piece of paper, you know? i said to the clerk, what are you trying to do, psych me out? it was a little bit nervous- making. on the other hand, i did not have all lot of other -- i thought it was pretty likely i was going to lose this argument. the supreme court does not typically hear re-argument in cases. the way it asked in this case, the writing was a bit on the wall. i thought, it is a big case, but on the other hand, it is not my fault. if they rule against me, i am not one to think it was my fault. anyway, the arguments turned out to be, as all my arguments were, a ton of fun. the first one, i remember my heart beating fast. but i got up to the podium and i believe it was justice scalia who asked the first question, a fairly typical justice scalia question. i love his questions. they are blunt and straightforward, and they put it to you. i answered it and i thought, look at that. words come out