Henry Waxman

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, today, 22 Members of the House have banded together to create a Safe Climate Caucus to end the conspiracy of silence in this House of Representatives about the dangers of climate change and the Republican denial of its existence and their rejection of the science. We are committing to talk every single day on the House floor about the urgent need to address climate change. President Obama is leading the way. He says we must respond to climate change because to do otherwise would be to betray our children and future generations. We are ready to get to work. We understand the threat facing our children, and we know our Nation has the know-how and the ingenuity to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, but to do so, we must act now.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 235, the Veteran Emergency Medical Technician Support Act of 2013. Congresswoman Capps and Congressman Kinzinger have introduced this commonsense legislation to advance our shared goals of getting our veterans back to work and addressing areas of shortage in health professions. H.R. 235 is essentially the same as legislation the House passed on a voice vote in the 112th Congress. I know we are all hopeful that this time around the Senate will act quickly to consider and pass this bill. Each of us is deeply indebted to the members of our military for their patriotism and for all they do to protect our country and its national interests. We know that our returning vets have unique skills and experiences that make them highly qualified for jobs in the health care and other sectors. However, the unfortunate reality is that our veterans experience unemployment rates well above the national average. H.R. 235 authorizes a demonstration grant program for states to support planning efforts to streamline their certification and licensure requirements for returning vets with emergency medical training. While states would take the lead in carrying out this program, I believe there would be an important role for partnerships between public and private organizations within the states--such as area health education centers--in its implementation. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 235, and I commend the sponsors of this bill for their work on this legislation.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 297, the Children's Hospital GME Support Reauthorization Act of 2013. H.R. 297 reauthorizes the children's hospital graduate medical education--or CHGME--program at the program's current authorization level. This program provides ongoing and consistent financial support to hospitals such as Children's Hospital of Los Angeles for the training of doctors who want to specialize in pediatrics. Over the years, the CHGME program has been enormously successful in reversing the significant decline in the number of pediatrician trainees across the country. Indeed, today, children's hospitals nationwide that are supported by the program train 40% of all pediatricians and 43% of all pediatric specialists. Not surprisingly, the CHGME program has a decade-long history of bipartisan support. The program was first established in 1999 and has subsequently been reauthorized on two occasions. During the 112th Congress, the House passed legislation that would have reauthorized the CHGME program for another five years. I'm sure that Members of both sides of the aisle agree we want to make certain this important program remains in place, and we want to send a strong message about the importance of fully funding it. I want to commend the work of members of the Energy and Commerce Committee for advancing H.R. 297 to the floor today. I especially want to recognize and applaud the leadership of Ranking Member Pallone and Chairman Pitts on this bill. I know we are all hopeful the Senate will act quickly to enact H.R. 297, so we can send legislation to the President for his signature. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 297.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of H.R. 225, the National Pediatric Research Network Act of 2013. The House passed legislation similar to H.R. 225 twice last year. I am hopeful that this time around we will get this bill over the finish line. H.R. 225 represents a bi-partisan effort to allow the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to establish a national pediatric research network dedicated to finding treatments and cures for pediatric diseases and conditions--especially those that are rare. The network would be comprised of up to 20 research consortia or groups of collaborating research institutions such as universities and hospitals. These consortia would be investigator-initiated and would conduct basic, clinical, behavioral, and translational research on pediatric diseases and conditions. NIH funding would be used to create the infrastructure necessary to carry out this research. Within the network, the NIH Director is instructed to ensure that an appropriate number of awards go to those consortia that focus primarily on pediatric rare diseases such as spinal muscular atrophy--or SMA--or birth defects such as Down syndrome. Because these kinds of diseases and conditions are rare and some of the children who suffer from them are very fragile, it makes it difficult for them to travel great distances to participate in clinical trials or other research. This is often the case when--not infrequently--only one institution is conducting such research. The availability of consortia--by definition, multiple cooperating institutions--should make clinical research opportunities far more accessible to these kids and their families. In turn, we would hope they would help speed up the time and effort in finding treatments and cures for these devastating diseases and conditions. In addition to the research itself, the consortia are expected to serve as training grounds for future pediatric researchers. Traditionally, pediatric research has been underfunded. This has sometimes resulted in real challenges in recruiting the talent necessary to tackle diseases and conditions that affect kids--again, especially those that are rare. Thus, H.R. 225 places a special emphasis on pediatric research techniques with the goal of helping to ``prime the pump'' for a greater number of leading edge pediatric researchers. Taken together, the components of H.R. 225 make for a package that would allow NIH to build on the strong body of pediatric research that it currently conducts and supports. I would encourage NIH to take full advantage of this opportunity. I want to commend all those members of the Energy and Commerce Committee who have come together to make H.R. 225 happen. I especially want to the note the efforts of Congresswoman Capps and Congresswoman McMorris Rodgers--the sponsors of this bill--for their tireless efforts to bring it before us today. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 225.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 307, the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Reauthorization Act of 2013, and urge my colleagues to support this bill as well. Mr. Speaker, this bill has been a long time coming. In fact, it's the same one we passed just last month at the end of the 112th Congress. H.R. 307 reflects a lengthy, but extremely productive process with our Senate colleagues and their staff to come together to bridge the differences between earlier House and Senate bills. H.R. 307 is the product of that effort. It is our hope that this time around, the Senate will pass the bill as soon as possible after the House acts on the legislation today. Toward that end, H.R. 307 reauthorizes and makes minor--but important--improvements to various programs and activities first established in the 2002 Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act; 2004 Project Bioshield Act; and the 2006 Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act, or as it is commonly referred to, ``PAHPA.'' These programs and activities are key in helping to ensure that our nation is well prepared to successfully manage the effects of natural disasters, infectious disease outbreaks, and acts of bioterrorism. H.R. 307 includes dozens of changes to these underlying authorities. Let me highlight just three provisions that deserve special attention: First, the bill will ensure that the Food and Drug Administration focuses on medical countermeasures of the highest importance. Medical countermeasures are products designed to combat chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear agents. H.R. 307 will facilitate communication between the FDA and product sponsors--particularly on high priority countermeasures for which sponsors have developed regulatory management plans--to resolve scientific and regulatory questions and help make these products available more quickly. Just last month, FDA approved the first drug developed and procured under Project BioShield. The FDA provisions in H.R. 307 will also facilitate the rapid provision of existing medicines to people in need during an emergency. Taken together, these FDA provisions--along with the renewed emphasis in our countermeasure enterprise through other parts of the legislation--will make it possible for a greater number of drugs and devices to move from early development to procurement. Second, the legislation makes improvements to the nation's blueprint for public health preparedness and response activities that will enhance the ability of our diverse health care system to respond to mass casualty emergencies. Among such improvements are clarifying the role of the Assistant Secretary of Preparedness and Response as the lead office within the Department of Health and Human Services for emergency preparedness and response. H.R. 307 also establishes a new authority to permit the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to approve a request of a state, territory, or an Indian tribe to redeploy certain federally-supported employees during the time of a national emergency to geographic areas where these employees are needed most. Finally, H.R. 307 continues support for investments in state and local public health departments. Such investments are necessary to make certain that we have the requisite public health infrastructure in place to respond immediately and appropriately to any public health threat that may arise. This legislation reflects the effort of a number of members-- Democrats and Republicans alike. On our side of the aisle, Congressman Green, Congresswoman Eshoo, Congressman Markey, and our Health Subcommittee Ranking Member, Congressman Pallone, have been deeply involved. I want to thank them and their staff for all the long and incredibly hard work they have put into this legislation and to the process of getting us here today. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 307.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. It continues the absurd denial of climate change that has blinded the House for the last two years. This bill directs the Army Corps of Engineers to study the vulnerability of these coastal populations to future flood risks. I submitted a sensible amendment to the Rules Committee. My amendment would have required the Corps to consider projected sea level rise from climate change. With scientific consensus that sea levels are rising rapidly due to human-caused climate change, it would be nonsensical to ignore this critical factor. But this rule does not make my amendment in order. Apparently, it is taboo to mention the words ``climate change'' in this body. This is the height of irresponsibility. We have a very short window to act. And if we don't, storms like Sandy will grow in frequency and intensity. We have a moral obligation to protect the planet for our children. That is why my amendment should have been made in order.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, as we begin a new Congress with many disappointments behind us and many challenges before us, I'd like to take a moment to note legislation that has proven successful beyond all expectations--the Orphan Drug Act. And I'd also like to note the recent passing of one that bill's first champions--Jack Klugman. Before 1983, people suffering from a rare disease had little or no hope that a treatment or cure would be developed, despite the fact that many potential treatments for those diseases existed. By definition, the market for a drug for rare disease was too small to attract drug companies to do the research and go through the approval process. It was a classic case of market failure. And, for better or for worse, pharmaceutical research usually depends on the market. So we had to invent an incentive for the pharmaceutical industry to do something that was squarely in the public interest. We had to make the development of orphan treatments something companies themselves wanted to do. To do so, we created incentives: intellectual-property protections, tax benefits, and regulatory advantages. But, like many good bills on complicated issues, the Orphan Drug Act got bogged down. And that's when the unexpected champion emerged--the Hollywood actor Jack Klugman. He was a big star and he had read about the problems of people with rare diseases. He used his television show, Quincy, to highlight the issue. (The show even hired people with rare diseases to serve as extras in a fictional demonstration outside the Capitol.) He was a witness before the Subcommittee on Health and the Environment, which I chaired. He went on to bring national attention to this problem that affected many, many people--but people in groups so small that they could never on their own get the help they needed. The bill passed the House. Ultimately, with the help of my friend and colleague, Senator Orrin Hatch, it also passed the Senate. President Reagan signed it into law on January 4, 1983. And the rest, as they say, is history--good history. The Act has been very successful. Over the thirty years between then and now, hundreds of orphan drugs have been approved and millions of Americans with rare diseases have been helped. There is still a lot to be done. There are thousands of rare diseases without treatments. The cost of many orphan drugs and many other drugs is still far too high. But this Act and the amendments made to it since then have made great progress. I'm sad to say that Jack Klugman died last week. He'd had a great career in entertainment and he will be remembered for that. But we can also all be grateful to him for his starring role in bringing this bill to the public and helping it become law. And we in the Congress can be proud of what the Orphan Drug Act has done.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, and my colleagues, we've seen this business all over and over again from the Republicans. Plan B, Plan C. Let's work on a bipartisan agreement to avoid the fiscal cliff. But what they presented to us today would slash Medicaid, which will hurt hundreds of thousands of people, including cutting off 300,000 children from health insurance, hurting some of our most vulnerable citizens. It would impede implementation of the health reform law that's already benefiting millions of Americans. It fails to protect Medicare from billions of dollars in cuts under the sequestration. It establishes a Federal medical malpractice system trampling on the rights of States. It undermines our future health by cutting today's prevention and public health investments. This is so unacceptable. We have nothing to solve the looming physician payment cuts. These are exactly the same Republican proposals that were rejected by the American people. They don't want more tax breaks for the millionaires and billionaires and big corporations paid for by cuts to our poorest Americans.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6672, the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Reauthorization Act of 2012, and urge my colleagues to support this bill as well. Madam Speaker, this legislation has been a long time coming. The House version of the bill passed this body over one year ago; the Senate version was adopted in March of this year. Since that time we have been engaged in a lengthy, but extremely productive process with our Senate colleagues and their staff to come together to bridge the differences between the two bills. H.R. 6672 is the product of that effort. It is our hope that the Senate will pass the bill as soon as possible after the House acts on the legislation today, allowing the critical work authorized under the legislation to continue. Toward that end, H.R. 6672 reauthorizes and makes minor--but important--improvements to various programs and activities first established in the 2004 Project Bioshield Act and the 2006 Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act, or as it is commonly referred to, ``PAHPA.'' These programs and activities are key in helping to ensure that our Nation is well prepared to successfully manage the effects of natural disasters, infectious disease outbreaks, and acts of bioterrorism. H.R. 6672 includes dozens of changes to these underlying authorities. Let me highlight just three provisions that deserve special attention: The bill targets the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, to ensure that it focuses on medical countermeasures--that is, products designed to combat chemical, biological, radioactive, and nuclear agents--of the highest importance. It requires FDA to work with industry on industry- submitted regulatory management plans for prioritized countermeasures to facilitate scientific exchanges between the FDA and countermeasure product sponsors to streamline our ability to make these products available. Just last Friday, FDA approved the first drug developed and procured under Project BioShield. Raxibacumab is approved for use together with antibiotics to treat anthrax in children and adults. The FDA provisions in H.R. 6672--together with the renewed emphasis in our countermeasure enterprise through other provisions in this legislation--will make it possible for even more drugs and devices to move from early development to procurement. The legislation also makes improvements to the Nation's blueprint for public health preparedness and response activities that will enhance the ability of our diverse health care system to respond to mass casualty emergencies. Among such improvements are clarifying the role of the Assistant Secretary of Preparedness and Response as the lead office within the Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, for emergency preparedness and response. H.R. 6672 also establishes a new authority to permit the HHS Secretary to approve a request of a state, territory, or an Indian tribe to redeploy certain federally-supported employees during the time of a national emergency to geographic areas where such employees are needed most. In addition, H.R. 6672 continues support for investments in State and local public health departments. Such investments are necessary to make certain that we have the requisite public health infrastructure in place to respond immediately and appropriately to any public health threat that may arise. This legislation reflects the effort of a number of members-- Democrats and Republicans alike. On our side of the aisle Congressman Green, Congresswoman Eshoo, Congressman Markey, and our Health Subcommittee Ranking Member--Congressman Pallone--have been deeply involved. I want to thank them and their staff for all the long and incredibly hard work they have put into this legislation and to the process of getting us here today. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 6672.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of S. 1440, as amended, and urge my colleagues to support the bill as well. As amended, S. 1440 is comprised of the authorization or re- authorization of three different programs, all related to children's health. Together, these provisions constitute a bipartisan effort to help ensure that our kids--and their health care needs--are appropriately and adequately addressed. Title One of the bill would reauthorize and improve the Prematurity Research Expansion and Education for Mothers Who Deliver Infants Early--or PREEMIE--Act. Established in 2006, the PREEMIE Act expands federal research related to preterm labor and delivery, and the care and treatment, and outcomes of preterm and low birth weight infants. It also supports education programs for health professionals and the public on prematurity. Title One is designed to enhance these activities and represents a renewed commitment to our nation's efforts to reduce premature birth, the leading killer of newborns. Title Two of S. 1440 would allow the National Institutes of Health to establish a national pediatric research network dedicated to finding treatments and cures for pediatric diseases and conditions--especially those that are rare. In addition to the research itself, Title Two places special emphasis on professional training for future pediatric researchers. These and other related components of Title Two are intended to build on the strong body of pediatric research that NIH already conducts and supports. I would encourage NIH to take full advantage of this opportunity. Finally, Title Three of the bill would reauthorize the children's hospital graduate medical education--or CHGME--program. This program provides ongoing and consistent financial support to hospitals such as Children's Hospital of Los Angeles for the training of doctors who want to specialize in pediatrics. Over the years, the CHGME program has been enormously successful in reversing the significant decline in the number of pediatrician trainees across the country. Indeed, today, children's hospitals nationwide that are supported by the program train 40% of all pediatricians and 43% of all pediatric specialists. As I have noted, this package of programs is a bi-partisan initiative that reflects the work of several members of the Energy and Commerce Committee. I especially want to note Congresswoman Eshoo, the Democratic sponsor of the original PREEMIE Reauthorization Act; Congresswoman Capps, the Democratic sponsor of the original National Pediatric Research Network Act; and Congressman Pallone, the Democratic sponsor of the original Children's Hospital GME Support Reauthorization Act. All of them and all of us--on both sides of the aisle--have much to be proud of in supporting S. 1440, as amended. I urge my colleagues to vote for S. 1440, as amended.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I am pleased that we are bringing this bill to the floor today. This bill combines two pieces of legislation, H.R. 1845 which provides a demonstration for the coverage of home infusion of intra venous immune globulin (IVIG) and H.R. 1063, which makes improvements to the Medicare Secondary Payer process. H.R. 1063 was developed and reported by the Energy and Commerce Committee as a bipartisan effort. I commend Chairman Upton's willingness to work with us to achieve a solution. I believe we have a good balance assembling this package of improvements to the current process. Under current law, Medicare is a secondary payer to certain group health plans and non-group health plans regardless of state law or plan provisions. These plans include auto or other liability insurance, no- fault insurance, and workers' compensation plans. But even though it is legally a secondary payer, it pays medical claims for Medicare beneficiaries--even if they may have other entities with a legal responsibility--and then recovers its expenditures so seniors and persons with disabilities are able to get the services they need. Then the appropriate claims are settled after the fact. The goal of the Medicare Secondary Payer bill is to reduce the burdens of the secondary payer process for beneficiaries and other stakeholders and help to have timely settlements, but to do so in a way that makes sure we are also protecting taxpayer dollars and the Medicare trust fund. I do regret that we were unable to include administrative funding for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to implement these new changes. Stakeholders are currently frustrated because the process does not move fast enough; adding new responsibilities on top of an already slow process--with no new funding--is going to burden the agency and make it more difficult to meet the stakeholders' desired time frame for resolution. I hope that at some future date we can provide a reasonable sum to speed this process along. I would like to clarify one additional point regarding the changes in this bill. The new process we have established for resolving disputes of claims posted on the web portal is not intended to supplant the ordinary appeals process for MSP activities. I believe that is clear in the language, but I want to note there should be no ambiguity. I am also pleased that a bill Congresswoman Matsui has been a clear leader on is included in this package today. She has worked tirelessly on this IVIG issue, and I am hopeful that this demonstration project she has championed will save both save money for the Medicare program and improve access to needed services for this vulnerable population. I thank her for her leadership on this issue. I thank Chairman Upton for working on these two issues with us, and our colleagues on the Ways and Means Committee who worked to bring these bills to the floor, and I look forward to next Congress where hopefully we will find additional areas of common ground to work on.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the ranking member of the Health Subcommittee of Energy and Commerce, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My colleagues, this is a bill that is special for one company in order for it to sell off the batches of the Primatene Mist that it has on stock. This is a product that's not on the market now--it was taken off the market--and there are substitutes on the market that the public health and medical groups say are far better and are far safer. There are a large number of organizations that have come to the floor on this bill to oppose it. The Energy and Commerce Committee heard expert medical testimony that Primatene Mist is not safe or recommended for treating asthma, and we have a chart here. These are the groups that oppose this bill and that would urge you to vote ``no'': the American Lung Association, the American Thoracic Society, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America. All of the people involved in health are saying they don't want this drug on the market, that it will only confuse asthma patients, and that it is not the safest drug that they could have. Now, the gentleman from Texas has said what we ought to do if it's not safe is to take it off the market. It is off the market. It hasn't been taken off because of safety, but it is not recommended by the medical community. There is another group here called the Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy, and I'd like to indicate some of the organizations that are part of that alliance, which are some of the major corporations in this country. Lastly, I want to show a chart of those who are in favor of this bill: Armstrong Pharmaceuticals. It is the one company that will benefit from this bill because it will be able to sell off the reserves of its product. Now, is that in the best interest of the patients? Is that what Congress ought to be doing, passing a special earmarked bill to favor one company in order for it to be able to take the rest of its stock and sell it to people? We do have a Food and Drug Administration, and we do have an Environmental Protection Agency. We've delegated to them the responsibility to protect the public health, to make sure that drugs are safe and effective. This Primatene Mist was supposed to come off the market, and it was given an additional year. Other companies were also going to have to go off the market. They knew that, and they're not on the market now. So why should we take one company's drug and put it back on the market so that it could sell off the products that it still has in its backlog? In fact, as you might imagine, those companies are against this bill. They say it would overturn an established regulatory framework to directly benefit just one company--Armstrong. Over the years, more than a dozen types of inhalers containing CFCs have been phased out, but these companies say: Why should we do something special for only one company? We're talking about not just the health groups, but drug companies like AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline. They oppose this bill because it provides one company with the special treatment that none of these other companies receive. There is no reason for this bill. This is a drug that is already off the market. There are substitutes that are being developed, and there are substitutes that are already on the market. I don't think we ought to be using the Suspension Calendar, of all procedures, to give a special deal to just one company. I urge Members to oppose the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. First of all, I want to address some of these issues myself, and then I will yield to others who want to speak. There is an environmental problem along with this medical problem. The environmental problem is that there is a deterioration of the upper ozone layer. And the United States, under President George H.W. Bush, negotiated an international treaty called the Montreal Protocol to get those products off the market that add chlorofluorocarbons which cause this environmental damage. And so my friend from Texas is right: we can't get hair spray or deodorant that has the propellent that has been taken off the market. But no one's arguing we should let them come back on the market to sell off their products. There are substitutes. My hair is in place because I don't need those products any longer. And my friend from Texas is handling his deodorant problem adequately. The fact of the matter is there are other products for asthma that the people in the medical professions say is superior; and they say that Primatene Mist can lead to damage and become a threat to health. So why are we going to take this one drug and put it back on the market? With those comments, I now yield 3 minutes to my good friend from the State of Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the dean of the House. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I'm pleased now to yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor), an important member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time each side has and which side has the right to close?

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to myself. I just want to point out what the allergy and asthma networks, mothers of asthmatics, the people who are dealing with this problem, they say this act gives unprecedented preferential and exclusive exceptions and financial benefits to Armstrong Pharmaceuticals. Primatene Mist is specifically not recommended for the treatment of asthma in the National Institutes of Health NHLBI asthma guidelines. They don't see a reason this ought to come back on the market. And the same point of view is expressed by the others that are the professionals that treat asthma patients. The effect of this bill will be to take the inventory that this company has and allow it to go back on the market, from January to August of 2013, so they can sell it off. It's not going back to the market; it's just going to allow the inventory to be sold off. A lot of that inventory is expiring in terms of its efficacy; so a lot of people, we hope, will not get some Primatene Mist back on the market that's not going to do them any good. And there are better alternatives. All the medical groups are telling us there are better alternatives. This is a special interest bill. It's a bad bill. It's bad for public health. It will confuse asthma patients. It provides special treatment to one company at the expense of its competitors. It's opposed by the people involved in health, the people who have asthma, the people who treat asthma, the manufacturers of drugs for asthma. We don't have to go back to a drug that's been outdated already and put it back on the market so this company can sell off their inventory. They say they're going to give all the money to charity. Well, I don't know what kind of tax breaks they get. I don't see why we should let them sell off their inventory, especially an inventory that's not going to be any good beyond August of next year. This is a bill that we ought to oppose, and I urge all my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased at this time to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Carnahan).

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The United States and the world are facing an enormous and growing threat: The pollution we are putting into the atmosphere is changing the climate around us. In this last year alone, New York City has been flooded by a superstorm, the Midwest has roasted in record-setting drought, and wildfires have scorched the West. These are not aberrations. They are the early warning signs of what the future will look like. Today, on one of the very last days of this Congress, we're taking our first step to recognize this looming threat. It's not a big step-- in fact, it's a tiny one--but it gives hope that we can work together, and it is a signal that at least we are headed in the right direction. Energy efficiency is an essential part of any serious effort to address climate change. It is the low-hanging fruit that reduces pollution while saving Americans money and creating jobs. Whether it's a building code or appliance standard or home retrofit, we should be doing far more in this area. In fact, a recent International Energy Agency analysis found that without new policies, two-thirds of the cost-effective energy efficiency gains that could be made will remain unrealized through 2035. This bill includes a number of noncontroversial technical fixes to appliance energy efficiency standards for water heaters, walk-in freezers, deli counter-style refrigerators, and certain types of air conditioners. The bill includes improvements to the process by which the Department of Energy updates its energy efficiency standards. In addition, there are a few sensible provisions to promote industrial energy efficiency and the efficiency of Federal Government buildings. This bill will not produce large energy savings, but it's a worthwhile package of consensus improvements. The package is based on provisions that recently passed the Senate by unanimous consent. Both industry and energy efficiency advocates support the bill. This is a bill that has a very good chance of becoming law this month. But we need to do much, much more. The beginning of a new Congress provides us an opportunity to work together on a bipartisan basis to enact commonsense energy efficiency legislation. Such legislation will save consumers money, boost domestic manufacturing, while cutting pollution, including the carbon pollution that is driving dangerous climate change. I look forward to starting those discussions with Chairman Upton and our Energy and Commerce Committee colleagues. There are many good ideas for policies that would reduce waste and save energy, and we should work together to explore those ideas and enact the ones we can agree on. Today's bill is a first step. I encourage my colleagues to support it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased at this time to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch), who is going to be joining again the Energy and Commerce Committee to my great delight.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time on my side of the aisle to support this legislation. I know that almost all Democrats that I have talked to think it's a good bill. I have urged the others to join with them in supporting it. I think it's a worthwhile piece of legislation. It's a small step, but it's a step in the right direction. And it will clarify some issues that still need to be clarified. So let's get this done. And in pursuit of that objective, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, the Palestinian leadership's decision to seek status as a non-member observer state in the United Nations General Assembly is a reckless and dangerous move. The General Assembly's vote to approve this gambit is a new low point for the institution. I commend President Obama for his unwavering stance opposing the Palestinian motion and the tireless efforts by this Administration to try and avert today's outcome. No country has done more than the United States to advance the true cause of Palestinian statehood. No one has done more to undermine that goal than the Palestinians themselves. Time and again the Palestinian leadership has chosen empty slogans over substantive achievements. These attempted short cuts have shortchanged the Palestinian people who aspire to achieve genuine statehood with the political, economic and social infrastructure to support a stable, functioning democracy. Today's vote undermines the key principle of mutual recognition that has been the foundation of a generation of diplomacy and successive Security Council resolutions concerning the peace process. It threatens to further derail a U.N. system already struggling under the weight of an unrelenting Palestinian agenda to attack Israel in the U.N. Human Rights Council and the U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. We now must consider the irreversible damage that could be wrought by irresponsible action in the World Health Organization, the International Court of Justice or the International Criminal Court. This maneuver will also make it more difficult for the United States to constructively engage the Palestinian leadership and chart a productive path ahead. At this uncertain time, the one thing that is abundantly clear is that the United States is committed to standing with Israel. We will continue to do all we can to maintain stability and security as we navigate the way forward.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleague Howard Berman in paying tribute to our lifelong and dear friend, Carmen Warschaw. Carmen passed away on Election Day, November 6, a fitting day for an activist who viewed politics as a participatory sport, in which she was a master player as well as a passionate fan. Carmen loved political gossip and good jokes. Her home was a veritable salon, where elected officials, old and new friends, and family members gathered for very good food and even better conversation and camaraderie. She was literally woven into the tapestry of Democratic politics and the California State Party. Always a leader, Carmen attained recognition on the national stage but played a large role in shaping party politics on the state level. Carmen and her college sweetheart and husband, Louis, who passed away in 2000, were truly a team to be reckoned with. They were actively involved in politics from their youth when the State of California was growing in Democratic representation. As leader of the state Democratic Party, Carmen played a central role as California's governor and legislature worked to create a model public education system with world famous universities, and highways and waterways that fed the thriving economy of the Golden State. She was a mentor, supporter, and strategy expert to a whole generation of politicians and public servants. She never shied away from taking sides and plunged wholeheartedly into the fray when she felt that those she had helped were not living up to her expectations. Carmen's reach went much further than politics. She leaves a remarkable legacy of interest in and generosity to the Jewish community. She was an indispensable leader in the Jewish Federation, the Los Angeles Music Center and the Otis Art Institute. Carmen and Lou also established the Carmen H. and Louis Warschaw Chair in Practical Politics at the University of Southern California, their alma mater. She established the Louis Warschaw Prostate Cancer Center at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center and they both also helped to establish the USC Casden Institute for the Study of the Jewish Role in American Life. Carmen is survived by a large and loving family, her daughter Hope and son-in-law, John Law, her daughter Susan and son-in-law, Carl Robertson, and grandchildren Jack Law-Warschaw, Cara Robertson and Chip Robertson and great-grandchildren Louis Harvey Robertson and Rose Frances Harvey Robertson. We ask our colleagues to join us as we celebrate and remember the legendary life of Carmen Warschaw.