Henry Waxman

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Water Quality Public Right-To-Know Act of 1996. This bill will guarantee the public's right to know about the contaminants that they are exposed to in their drinking water. Under current law the public has no information about the presence of serious contaminants in their drinking water. Every year millions of Americans unknowingly drink tap water contaminated with cryptosporidium, carcinogens, and arsenic. If we can't prevent this contamination, we should at least give our constituents the ability to protect themselves. The Water Quality Public Right-To-Know Act of 1996 will require water systems to annually report to their customers a plainly worded explanation of the health implications of contaminants present in their drinking water. It also allows States the flexibility to shape this program. During the last 2 years many of my Republican colleagues have argued for a devolution revolution. They have urged that we move power from the Federal Government to the State and local level. My legislation goes one step further. It requires that information be given directly to our constituents, which will allow them to make individual choices about the level of exposure to dangerous contaminants.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, today employees who have insurance coverage where they work fear that if they lose their job or change jobs they will not be able to get insurance. If they have a medical problem, they worry they will be excluded from coverage permanently or that they will have a long waiting period before they can be covered. They face the so-called ``job lock'' where they cannot move on to other or better jobs because they cannot risk the loss of their health insurance coverage, and if they lose their job, their situation is made worse by facing the loss of that insurance. The substitute before us would change that. It would guarantee them access to health insurance coverage. It would assure them that an existing health problem would not be a reason to exclude them from coverage. Now this base bill that we are seeking to amend has provisions that are similar to Kennedy-Kassebaum, the Dingell bill, the Roukema bill. There really is not a lot of difference between all these provisions. There are some differences, but they are minor, and they are differences that can be worked out if people sat down and talked them through. In fact, I voted for the Kennedy-Kassebaum-Roukema version of this legislation when it was in the Committee on Commerce. Everybody did. It was a unanimous vote. But the Republican proposal before us adds some things that I think will make this legislation fail ultimately to become law. They take medical savings accounts, which may or may not be a good idea; the small employer pooling, which may or may not work. A lot of people fear that it will lead to cherry-picking of the least risky people by insurance companies. They make medical malpractice changes, which are very controversial because some people fear that this will deprive injured parties of their full redress. They take savings from the Medicare Program because of an antifraud provision, and they use those savings to fund the tax breaks for medical savings accounts. Those are controversial issues. They should not be in a bill that can be passed on a bipartisan basis and turned into law. There are things I would like us to do, because let us realize what we are not addressing is the problem of the 40 million uninsured in this country. I do not care what version of the bills we pass today, they are not going to be covered after all is said and done. I think there are important changes we need in our health care system, but if we do not have a consensus to accomplish them, let us do what we can and pass the bill that would prevent this job lock and assure that people will get insurance if they leave their jobs and take another job or want to buy a private insurance policy. I would urge support for the substitute. I will not go through the denigration of what the other people have to say. What I do say is let us pass what we can into law. Let us not lose this chance.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I am not the ranking member, but I am a member of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. Mr. Speaker, I think we ought to put some perspective to this debate. We are faced with an anomalous situation. We are singling out seven Federal employees for special and unprecedented treatment by compensating them for their legal expenses. The House of Representatives has taken great pride in the fact that we are now going to operate under the rules that apply to other employers. That started in January of this year. In December of last year, over 100 House employees were summarily fired, and some of them apparently were fired because they were Democrats. They were, many of them, career people who had been here for a very long period of time. They are out. They do not have a job. No one is seeking to compensate them. What we are faced with in this case is not compensating people for losing their jobs, because six of the seven travel office employees got jobs right away. What we are seeking to do is to pay for their legal fees. That might be the right thing to do, but it might have been the right thing to do when Federal employees were targeted and smeared by Senator McCarthy and other investigators over the years. It might be the right thing to do for many in the Clinton White House, employees who face hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal bills. Yesterday an article in the Legal Times noted, and I want to quote this: At last count, nearly 40 current and former officials of the Clinton White House alone have found it necessary to retain counsel. The essential problem is that anyone taking a senior governmental position these days, especially in the White House, may end up in need of legal counsel, no matter how honorably she (or he) conducts herself (or himself). That wasn't true 20 years ago. It is a consequence of our current culture, of hair-trigger resort to criminal investigations as the ultimate weapon in partisan warfare. Mr. Speaker, there have been a growing number of investigations by appointed investigators, as well as congressional ones, much of which, in my opinion, have been motivated by partisan considerations. The White House, under President Clinton, came in and looked at the travel office and they had an independent review by the Peat, Marwick accounting firm that said there was a shambles in the travel office operations in terms of bookkeeping, a lot of mismanagement. They brought this to the attention of the people running the internal operations of the White House. In fact, some of the claims about mismanagement led to the Justice Department deciding to prosecute Mr. Dale. He was acquitted, but in this legislation, the proponents seek to compensate him for his attorney's fees. There is another former White House aide that had something to do with the travel office, David Watkins. He has incurred, according to testimony he gave us, over $100,000 in attorney's fees and more bills are yet on the way. Mr. Watkins has not been charged with any crime. Should we be compensating him for his attorney's fees? Many lawyers in this House know the adage, ``tough cases make bad law.'' Unless we use H.R. 2937 as a precedent for future Federal employees, this will indeed be a bad law. We should never single out one group for special treatment, even if they have a meritorious claim, while ignoring others in similar situations. Mr. Speaker, I hope in passing H.R. 2937 the majority will also commit to supporting future legislation that provides such compensation to other Federal employees. That is the precedent we are taking in adopting this legislation. It is one that I hope the Judiciary Committee thought through quite carefully, because it may be one that will incur the taxpayers of this country an enormous amount of expenses, for not just these seven people but others who have as meritorious, if not more meritorious, a claim that for their Government service and for their having to deal with accusations and investigations, for which they had to hire lawyers just to protect themselves in case someone later wanted to come back and second-guess them on anything they might have said or anything they might have done. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for allowing me to make this statement and I hope Members will be very thoughtful about the consequences of legislation that we are looking at today.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to point out that when the General Accounting Office did their evaluation, they talked to a Mr. Larry Herman from Peat Marwick. He was a Peat Marwick senior partner who led the travel office review. In Mr. Herman's professional judgment, and I am quoting from the GAO notes, the travel office's accounting records were, quote, ``the messiest, most illegible bookkeeping he had ever seen.'' He stated he was, quote, ``barely able to read the writing, very sloppy, and inconsistent with no explanations of differences,'' end quote. Mr. Speaker, he was also frustrated he could not obtain appropriate responses from Mr. Dale, and they further went on that they seemed to have no concern for recordkeeping of other people's money. This might just be sloppiness, but they certainly raised a lot of concern when this audit was presented to people in the White House as to whether they ought to continue to keep the travel office employees in their jobs, and they decided eventually not to. Mr. Speaker, what all of the Members here seem to be saying is that if they simply fired them for political reasons, that would have been OK.

Mr. WAXMAN. If the gentleman will yield, there was an official audit by Peat Marwick.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill. By bringing this proposal to the floor in a form that we know the President will veto, the majority continues to hold necessary Government programs and innocent Federal employees hostage to their agenda. This bill continues totally unacceptable cuts in education spending, it provides greatly inadequate funding for our environmental protection programs, and it gratuitously brings abortion issues into this spending bill. It contains provision after provision which clearly will result in a veto of this effort. Many of my colleagues have spoken eloquently on these issues. But I also want to draw my colleagues' attention to another part of this bill--provisions amending FDA law concerning the export of unapproved drugs. While I know the sponsor of this legislation is well- meaning in his intent--and indeed in another context I believe I could find much common ground with him on this effort--it is unnecessary and inappropriate to include this measure in this legislation. The regular committee process is the right way to develop and refine legislation on these issues. And that is the way this bill should be handled. We are not at the end of this session. We are not running out of time on a measure that has been agreed to on both sides of the aisle and both Houses of the Congress. There is no time-sensitive crisis situation which would require an unusual procedure for consideration. It should not be done in this way. Not only is this inappropriate, but this kind of process lends itself to errors and misjudgments. I am concerned, for example, that a number of provisions that evidently were intended by the sponsor to be included to address FDA concerns with the bill were not in fact included because of the rush of the drafting and consideration process. To mention only one example, the provision before us does not include the necessary protections requested by the FDA to restrict importation of blood and tissue products for future export to assure that there is no diversion or cross-contamination into our own blood supply. There are additional areas that at least deserve careful consideration before this bill is rushed forward. Under this proposal, if a drug is approved in any one of a number of listed countries, it can then be exported from the United States for export into any country that does not have a legal barrier to such import. But it does not require that the drug be labeled for use in a way similar to what was approved. It does not require that promotion in the recipient country be consistent with the indications and contraindications. Nor does it require suspension of export if the FDA finds the drug presents an imminent hazard in the recipient country. Again, I want to make clear that I personally am receptive to some revision in our FDA law on the export of unapproved drugs. I consider this a likely candidate for the development of a bipartisan consensus if it is considered in the normal process. But action in this way increases the likelihood of error. This FDA section does not belong in this bill.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to sustain President Clinton's veto of the Interior appropriations bill. The legislative riders in H.R. 1977 mandate extreme changes in national environmental policy that cannot stand public scrutiny on their own. Otherwise, they would not be hidden in this funding bill. One of the riders in H.R. 1977 would end a hugely successful energy- efficiency program that was enacted 8 years ago during the Reagan administration. At that time, a broad industry coalition that included all major appliance manufacturers agreed to efficiency standards to make refrigerators, washing machines, air conditioners, dishwashers, and gas furnaces more efficient. On average, these Federal efficiency standards have brought savings of $1,300 per U.S. household--a total of $130 billion in economic savings. Why would Congress terminate a program that has brought such great savings to our constituents and dramatically reduced emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases that contribute to global warming? It is not because global warming is not a problem. Today's New York Times reports that last year was the warmest year since records were first kept in 1856; and that the years 1991 through 1995 were warmer than any similar 5-year period on record. Why would we raise the cost of energy to our constituents to allow for greater pollution of their environment and an increase in global warming? Innovative companies like Whirlpool, Frigidaire, and Maytag support the Federal efficiency standards and are developing new technologies that lead to more efficient appliances. Unfortunately, other companies have not stepped up to the challenge and now want Congress to reward their poor performance. This rider brushes aside consumer interests, technological innovation, and environmental protection to please a select group of companies who have lobbied for a special interest gift. The winners are the whiners--the least efficient companies, the ones that pollute the most. The losers, again, are our constituents who are being threatened with policies they do not support that would deplete our natural resources and bring great harm to our environment. This is awful policy, and it should be deleted from this bill. Support the President's veto. [From the New York Times, Jan. 4, 1996] '95 the Hottest Year on Record as the Global Trend Keeps Up (By William K. Stevens) The earth's average surface temperature climbed to a record high last year, according to preliminary figures, bolstering scientists' sense that the burning of fossil fuels is warming the climate. Spells of cold, snow and ice like the ones this winter in the northeastern United States come and go in one region or another, as do periods of unusual warmth. But the net result globally made 1995 the warmest year since records first were kept in 1856, says a provisional report issued by the British Meteorological Office and the University of East Anglia. The average temperature was 58.72 degrees Fahrenheit, according to the British data, seven-hundredths of a degree higher than the previous record, established in 1990. The British figures, based on land and sea measurements around the world, are one of two sets of long-term data by which surface temperature trends are being tracked. The other, maintained by the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, shows the average 1995 temperature at 59.7 degrees, slightly ahead of 1990 as the warmest year since record-keeping began in 1866. But the difference is within the margin of sampling error, and the two years essentially finished neck and neck. The preliminary Goddard figures differ from the British ones because they are based on a somewhat different combination of surface temperature observations around the world. One year does not a trend make, but the British figures show the years 1991 through 1995 to be warmer than any similar five-year period, including the two half-decades of the 1980's, the warmest decade on record. This is so even though a sun-reflecting haze cast aloft by the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines cooled the earth substantially for about two years. Despite the post-Pinatubo cooling, the Goddard data show the early 1990's to have been nearly as warm as the late 1980's, which Goddard says was the warmest half-decade on record. Dr. James E. Hansen, the director of the Goddard center, predicted last year that a new global record would be reached before 2000, and yesterday he said he now expected that ``we will still get at least a couple more'' by then. Dr. Hansen has been one of only a few scientists to maintain steadfastly that a century-long global warming trend is being caused by mostly by human influence, a belief he reiterated yesterday. Other experts would go no further than the recent findings of a United Nations panel of scientists in attributing the continuing and accelerating warming trend to human activity-- specifically the emission of heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide, which is released by the burning of coal, petroleum products and wood. The United Nations panel concluded, for the first time, that the observed warming is ``unlikely to be entirely natural in origin'' and that the evidence ``suggests a discernible human influence on climate.'' Previously, few scientists apart from Dr. Hansen had been willing to go even that far, contending that the relatively small warming so far could easily be a result of natural climate variability. Even now, most experts say it is unclear whether human activity is responsible for a little of the warming or a lot. ``I think we're beginning to see it,'' Dr. Phil Jones of the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia said of the human influence on climate, adding that he agreed with the United Nations report. ``I don't think you can say much from one year's values,'' he said, ``but this figure from '91 to '95 is quite illuminating.'' He said it was nearly half a degree above the 1961-90 benchmark average of 58 degrees. Both the 1995 record high temperature and the strikingly warm half-decade of the early 1990's are ``consistent with the sort of expectation we have of the interplay between natural and manmade influences.'' said Dr. Tom M.L. Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. If things had not turned out that way, he said, ``we would have been pretty surprised and maybe a little concerned'' about the United Nations panel's conclusion. Nevertheless, he said, ``it's not the sort of thing you want to overinterpret or overemphasize.'' Dr. Wigley was a member of a subcommittee of the United Nations panel that dealt specifically with the question of detecting a human role in climate change. The panel predicted that the heat-trapping gas emissions would cause the average global temperature, now approaching 60 degrees Fahrenheit, to rise by a further 1.8 to 6.3 degrees, with a best estimate of 3.6 degrees, by 2100. By comparison the world is 5 to 9 degrees warmer now than in the last ice age more than 10,000 years ago. The predicted warming, if it materializes, would likely cause widespread climatic disruption, the United Nations panel said. The margin of seven-hundredths of a degree by which the 1995 global average exceeds that of 1990, according to the new British data, sounds small. But it represents an increase of nearly half a degree from the post Pinatubo low, in 1992. As scientists had previously predicted, the recovery from the Pinatubo cooling became obvious last year, though no record was set. The 1995 figure is all the more remarkable, Dr. Hansen said, because it was established at a time when two natural warming influences were neutralized. The solar energy cycle was at a low ebb, and the warming effect of El Nino, the pool of warm Pacific water that appeared in early 1995, was offset by a turn to cooler-than-normal conditions in the tropical Pacific later in the year. A different picture emerges from an analysis of satellite measurements of global temperature by Dr. John R. Christy of the University of Alabama and Dr. Roy Spencer of NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Hunstville, Ala. While their data show temperature fluctuations roughly paralleling those in the surface measurements, the values are lower: 1995 was only an ordinary year compared with the data set's 1982-91 average. But that was a warm period to start with, said Dr. Christy. And, Dr. Jones said, the satellite measurements combine temperature readings for the entire lower atmosphere, rather than measuring just at the surface, while the most prominent warming--over the Northern Hemisphere continents--does not extend very far upward. That explanation of the difference in the data sets ``makes sense,'' Dr. Christy said, adding, ``Of course we only live in the bottom'' of the atmosphere. In the past, skeptics about global warming have cited the satellite data. But Dr. Christy said that even the rate of warming measured from the satellites has begun to move into the range scientists expect to result from human-caused warming.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to Sanford M. Litvack, a distinguished attorney who currently serves as the senior executive vice president and chief of corporate operations of the Walt Disney Co. Mr. Litvack is greatly respected both in the legal community and among the advocates of legal reform and legal services for the poor. He has led the crusade to make the law a field of humane service, and not merely a remunerative profession. On January 27, 1996, Bet Tzedek Legal Services will honor Sanford M. Litvack for his unstinting work in bringing high-quality legal services to the poor, the elderly, and others in need. Under Mr. Litvack's vigorous leadership, the goals of Bet Tzedek have been realized even beyond the expectations of the organization's founders and staunchest supporters. He and his colleagues have assembled a well-organized, efficient, humanitarian organization that individuals can turn to for competent legal counsel when all other paths are closed. Sanford Litvack sets a standard for us all to live up to. He has been able to balance his full family and professional life with energetic and creative contributions to the organization and leadership of Bet Tzedek and other humanitarian and philanthropic efforts. I ask all of my colleagues to join me in recognizing Sanford Litvack for his important work with Bet Tzedek Legal Services. I wish him every success in all of his future endeavors.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask colleagues to join me in paying tribute to Sanford M. Litvak, a distinguished attorney who currently serves as the senior executive vice president and chief of corporate operations of the Walt Disney Co. Mr. Litvak is greatly respected both in the legal community and among the advocates of legal reform and legal services for the poor. He has led the crusade to make the law a field of humane service, and not merely a remunerative profession. On January 27, 1996 Bet Tzedek Legal Services will honor Sanford M. Litvak for his unstinting work in bringing high quality legal services to the poor the elderly, and others in need. Under Mr. Litvak's vigorous leadership, the goals of Bet Tzedek have been realized even beyond the expectations of the organization's founders and staunchest supporters. He and his colleagues have assembled a well-organized, efficient, humanitarian organization that individuals can turn to for competent legal counsel when all other paths are closed. Sanford Litvak sets a standard for us all to live up to. He has been able to balance his full family and professional life with energetic and creative contributions to the organization and leadership of Bet Tzedek and other humanitarian and philanthropic efforts. I ask all of my colleagues to join me in recognizing Sanford Litvak for his important work with Bet Tzedek Legal Services. I wish him every success in all of his future endeavors.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume in discussing this legislation and urging my colleagues to vote for the bill. I want to congratulate the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Manzullo] for this legislation. It would permit the States at their discretion to choose some other alternative manner to achieve their emissions reductions than the car pooling or the ECO arrangement as spelled out in the existing Clean Air Act. The bill is emissions neutral. It requires States that opt-out of the ECO program to make up the emission reductions from other sources. The administration, to my knowledge, has expressed no opposition to this legislation. I would urge the President to sign the bill. I think it is a helpful piece of legislation in clarifying and correcting a problem that has come into some controversy in some of the States. Mr. Speaker, I think that, even with this bill, many areas will retain the ECO programs, and for good reason. We knew in 1990 that the increases in the number of vehicles on the Nation's roads and the increases in the distances-that these vehicles travel could cancel much of the gain we would expect from the cleaner cars and cleaner fuels mandated by the Clean Air Act. Between 1970 and 1990, the number of vehicle miles traveled in this country doubled. Both total miles and trips per day continue to grow at a rate faster than the population or the economy. If we hold to these present growth rates, automobile-related emissions, currently down due to the tough tail-pipe standards and clean fuel programs of the 1990 Act, and will start to climb within the next 10 years. And the clean air gains we have made will be put in jeopardy. It should also be emphasized that while this bill allows States the flexibility to implement alternative measures, States can retain their ECO programs. Indeed, I fully expect that many of these programs will be retained. A well-designed and well-run ECO program can provide not only emissions reductions, it can reduce traffic congestion, provide employees with more commuting options, and encourage employer participation in regional transportation planning. And some employers report more than these successes, they report improved bottom lines. For instance, a California company was able to avoid building a $1 million parking garage due to its trip reduction measures. A Connecticut employer found that sales staff staying later in the day as part of their compressed work week increased West Coast sales. Clearly both employers and the breathing public can benefit from these programs. Mr. Speaker, I support this bill. I urge my colleagues to support the bill. I want to reserve the balance of our time on this side of the aisle so that other Members, should they wish to speak on the matter, will have an opportunity and that we can further the debate should there be any issues that need to be clarified. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation that would extend the law that allows the community health centers to take advantage of the Federal Tort Claims Act coverage. That will mean and has meant for a number of these community health centers that they will not have to use their scarce resources to go out and buy a private medical malpractice insurance policy, since they will be covered by the Federal law, the same as any other Federal agency would under the circumstances. This legislation was authored originally by the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Wyden, and coauthored by the gentlewoman from Connecticut, Mrs. Nancy Johnson. It has worked well, and the bill before us would be to extend the legislation to be able to work in the future. Mr. Speaker, I support the legislation and urge all our colleagues to support it as well. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. It is a good candidate for the Corrections Day Calendar because this bill would correct a provision in law that requires the posting of a warning sign about the potential dangers of saccharin which is really no longer necessary. It was put into the original law dealing with saccharin at a time when we thought there ought to be a warning until such time as the label itself on the product contained the information to advise consumers. I think that the gentleman from California [Mr. Bilbray], my friend and colleague, is to be commended for bringing this issue to our attention. This is a bill that no one should disagree with. It is correcting a problem. I think that it is overdue. I would urge support for this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting Robert L. Mettler of Los Angeles for his philanthropic and civic contributions and for his signal achievements in retail merchandising. Robert Mettler has found the time, energy, and commitment to sustain a deep involvement in numerous community projects in spite of the demands of three decades of leadership in business. He has been especially committed to the Shelter Workshop Program for the Mentally Retarded, a trailblazing organization headed by Eunice and R. Sargent Shriver. During his residency in Texas, he was a leader of the State of Texas Special Olympics and the United Way of Dallas. In addition to this work, Robert Mettler serves as chairman of the council of trustees of the National Jewish Center for Immunology and Respiratory Medicine in Denver, CO. He also serves on the leadership panel of Brandeis University in Waltham, MA. Robert Mettler is one of the best known and most respected leaders in fashion and apparel. On Tuesday, December 12, 1995, Mr. Mettler's friends and admirers will pay tribute to him at a banquet in his honor sponsored by the Fashion Industries Division of the United Jewish Fund. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Mr. Mettler for the great achievements that have earned him this honor. I wish him many more years of good health and an ongoing active commitment to his philanthropic activities.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am a member of the Corrections Day Advisory Group, and I support this bill that is before us today and the other bills that are going to be considered on the Corrections Calendar. I last spoke about the corrections day on the House floor in June when we considered setting up a correction day. At that time, I raised the concern that the calendar would become a fast track for special interests to stop regulations to protect public health and the environment. Today, I am here to say that this has not happened and to commend the corrections day process. The guidelines we developed for the Corrections Day Advisory Committee say that a corrections bill should address laws and regulations that are ambiguous, arbitrary, or ludicrous. The bill should be noncontroversial and have broad bipartisan support. The idea was to provide a forum for correcting silly, burdensome regulations that might not otherwise get the attention they deserve. The Chair of the advisory group is the gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich]. Under her leadership, we have been learning how to apply these guidelines to the many bills that come before the Corrections Day Advisory Group. The advisory group in general, and Chairman Vucanovich in particular, has been doing an excellent job in managing this Corrections Calendar. We have truly been identifying needless, burdensome regulations that can be corrected on the Corrections Calendar without controversy and with broad bipartisan support. At the same time, we have been rejecting bills that do not meet the corrections day criteria because they are controversial or address significant policy issues that should be considered under regular legislative procedures. There are many examples of worthwhile corrections day bills that the House has enacted or is considering. The bill before us right now is an excellent example. Earlier this month, we passed a corrections bill that eliminated a duplicative reporting requirement relating to cardiac pacemakers, the Committee on Commerce reported a corrections bill that eliminates duplicative warning notices for products containing saccharin, and I hope we will also be able to deal with the issue of ride-sharing under the Clean Air Act in a way that meets the criteria of the Corrections Calendar. I am particularly pleased to report that the existence of this Corrections Calendar has persuaded agencies to correct problems on their own. Let me give an example. In September, the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Nussle] brought a bill to the advisory committee that addressed a technical problem in the Clean Air Act. The problem was that the grain elevators that operate seasonally were being treated by air pollution regulators as if they were operated year round. The result was that these elevators might be classified as a major pollution source subject to permitting requirements. Congresswoman Vucanovich and I wrote the EPA Administrator Carol Browner about the issue, informing her that this appeared to be a candidate for the Corrections Calendar. The Administrator investigated the issue, agreed that there was a problem that needed correcting, and promised to issue new guidelines correcting the grain elevator problem. On November 14, the EPA fulfilled its commitment and issued the new guideline. The National Feed and Grain Association commended EPA on this action and estimated that the savings would be $10 to $20 million annually. In closing, I particularly want to commend the gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich]. When the Corrections Day Advisory Committee first met, she said she wanted to feel her way step-by-step in establishing fair and appropriate procedures for Corrections Day. She has done an excellent job feeling her way. Speaking as one who initially had doubts about how the Corrections Day process would be handled, I am pleased to be able to say that it has been handled very fairly and productively under the leadership of the gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich]. The bill that is before us right now and the other bills on the calendar today under this procedure deserve the support of Members of the House. I hope that the Corrections Day Advisory Committee will present other worthwhile measures for the House to consider and to pass through this expedited procedure. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] for giving me this opportunity to address this subject.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, with corporate welfare incredibly off the table and with an incomprehensible call for tax cuts in the fact of these huge deficits, the Republicans want to savagely cut what will be needed to adequately fund Medicare and Medicaid, even though health care costs are increasing and our elderly population is growing. With the return of this conference report to the House, we have another opportunity to do what we should have done in the first place: say no to these devastating cuts in Medicare and Medicaid. The President has made it clear he will not sign a bill that destroys these two programs. Medicaid is not only subject to deep and unsustainable cuts in this budget, but the program itself is repealed. And this cannot happen. We have 18 million kids depending on Medicaid for their health care. That is 1 in 4 in this country. It makes no sense to turn our backs on them. Millions of seniors and disabled people depend on Medicaid for nursing home coverage, millions of middle-class families need to know that this help will be there for their parents. Severely disabled kids and adults have nowhere else to turn, if they cannot depend on Medicaid. We cannot accept a program that adds millions of America's kids to the rolls of the uninsured. We cannot undo the only program we have got to help deal with the astronomical cost of long-term care. To take hundreds of billions of dollars out of this program is wrong, especially when we are not touching corporate welfare. Why are we giving tax breaks and paying for it by cutting these two programs? Every American should be grateful to the President that he is standing up and saying he will not accept the destruction of Medicaid, that he will not see damaging cuts in Medicare. We should not accept them either. Vote no on this conference report.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, no challenge we face in our lives is greater than raising our children. As a father, I know those challenges well. That is why I was so impressed by an event recently attended by the First Lady, and the contribution that event could make in the lives of new parents around the country. Mrs. Clinton spoke at a Baby Safety Shower put on by the Consumer Product Safety Commission--a Federal agency responsible for keeping families safe in and around their homes. The CPSC knows that being a parent does not come with an instruction manual. Being a parent means on-the-job training. The CPSC also knows that more children die from accidental injuries than from childhood diseases. So CPSC Chairman Ann Brown determined to get information to new parents about hidden safety hazards in the home that could present a danger to infants and toddlers. Her idea was to mount a national campaign to encourage day-care centers, community organizations, and families to give new mothers a baby shower with a twist--a shower incorporating critical safety information. The first such shower was held here in Washington on October 25 at the Edward Mazique Parent Child Center, and Mrs. Clinton came to help host the shower. She made some outstanding remarks to the more than 80 mothers gathered there, and I would like to enter those remarks into the Record. Remarks by First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton at the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission's Kick-Off of ``Baby Safety Showers,'' Washington, DC Mrs. CLINTON: Thank you very much. I'm delighted to be here. I think this is a very important event. I want to thank Gerber and everyone associated with Gerber foods for their commitment to this baby safety effort. I want to thank Ann Brown and everyone associated with the Commission for their leadership on all of these issues about how we keep our babies safe. I'm pleased to be here at this child care center. The Mazique Center is well known around not only in this area, but throughout the country for its many years of superb care for the children of the District of Columbia. Now there are some, I would guess who would think that talking about a baby safety shower is something that doesn't deserve a lot of attention. That it is a nice thing to do, but not as important as some of the really big issues of our time. Well I can only say that there is nothing more important than our children and there is nothing more important to any parent than keeping our babies and our children safe and secure as much as we are able to do so. I have found as I've travelled throughout the country talking with parents exactly what Ann said she had found. Many of us just don't know everything we need to know to keep our babies secure. And part of the reason I'm here today is to reinforce the message of this baby safety shower. To encourage people all over the country that when they have a pregnant friend, pregnant daughter, when they themselves are pregnant that they will think about safety issues. It's always nice to get the cute little clothes that people give for a baby, but I think it's more important to give some of the kinds of products we saw demonstrated upstairs that will keep baby's little fingers out of outlets, will keep them from--I just learned lifting up the toilet bowl [lid] and drowning which can happen, keep them safe in their cribs, keep the little toys out of their mouths. Those kinds of gifts that we can give one another and that every parent would be glad to receive are what I hope will be flooding into all of the lives of parents in our country because of this initiative. I know that it is very difficult for parents to feel that they can control everything that happens to their babies in today's world, because the world is complex, it is challenging, and in many respects more dangerous than it has been in the past. That's why trying to make our homes safe is something that is [[Page E 2216]] within our control. We can't control what happens on the street corner. We can't control whether or not our child will be safe all the time when he or she leaves our house. But to the best of our ability, we can try to make our child safe indoors, in our own homes. I also think that the work that is being done here on the baby safety showers will very clearly point out that there is a need for all of us, together to cooperate to help parents raising children. You know I'm finishing a book that I'm writing called ``It Takes a Village to Raise a Child'' which is after an old african proverb. Some people have come to me and said, ``Why are you writing that book?'' ``Parents know already what they're supposed to do!'' And I said, ``I didn't.'' I didn't get an instruction manual when my daughter was born. And much of it was trial by error and luckily I had family and friends and other people who were there for me telling me what I needed to do to keep my baby safe and healthy. Other people have said, ``Why are you saying it takes a village to raise a child? It's the family's responsibility.'' Well of course it's the family's responsibility. But the family does not exist in a vacuum today. The family exist in the greater world. The family needs commissions, and businesses, and child care centers and schools, and doctors and hospitals. The family needs a lot of support from ``the village'' in order for the family to do the best possible job it can do. And that's what this baby safety shower is about. It's about people coming together to help parents do a good job. I've never met a parent who set out not to do a good job. I've met parents overwhelmed by the circumstances of their lives, facing difficult odds that I cannot even imagine. Having problems because of their own childhood or their own situations. But I have never met a parent that did not want to do the best job he or she could do as a father or a mother. And what we have to do is give parents and families the tools so they can be the best mothers and fathers. So it really does take a village. It takes the Consumer Product Safety Commission and Gerber Foods and the Mazique Child Care Center and a lot of other people to help parents and families because after all, we in our country give a lot of lip service to how important we think our children are--don't we? You can hear it everyday on the news. But too often we don't translate that into action. And some of the actions we need to take are very small ones. Like putting your baby on her back instead of on her stomach, making sure she can't get through the slats of the crib. Some of them are a little bigger. Making sure that if you have child care needs they are met in a good place where your child will be stimulated and cared for while you're at work. And some of them get a little bigger. Believing that the school that your child goes to is the right place and that teachers care about your child. And some of them get then even bigger, trying to keep your neighborhood safe, getting rid of gangs, and drug dealers and the drive-by shooters. All of the dangers that exist in too many areas of communities or too many of our children. And sometimes what we have to do to keep our baby safe is even bigger than that. About the kind of values that we have as a country. Whether we really do care about parents and families. And that means keeping the social safety need in place. Making sure that people who need health care will get health care by keeping medicaid available for families who need it. One in four of our children rely on Medicaid. We would not as a family say that one in four of our children didn't deserve health care. We would try to take care of all of them. So when we think about all that we can do as parents and all that everyone else should do to help us be the best possible parents, I believe we're on the right road to making sure all of us feel responsible not only for our own baby but for every baby. Any baby that dies because of a product that did not have to cause that baby's death is not just a loss for that family, but it is a loss for all of us. So any baby we save because of these products is a baby that we save for everybody. So I want to thank all the people who are focusing on this issue and I hope families all over America will have baby safety showers and talk to each other, educate each other about what we need to do to keep all of our babies safe and healthy.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this conference report. I want to address the two health care programs that I think are going to be very adversely affected by this legislation; Medicare and Medicaid. In both of these programs we will see deep cuts in the Federal payments without any assurance that there will be sufficient amount to actually deal with the high cost of health care, especially for those people to whom we promised protection for health care costs; the elderly and the poor. The proposal may destroy Medicare as we know it, where the elderly have a choice of their own doctor at the present time. They also have a choice now of an HMO or other managed care plan, if they want it. What I hate to see is the lack of a choice because people will be forced only into an HMO whether they want it or not because they cannot afford anything else. In the Medicaid Program deep cuts are going to be very devastating to the poor, who have nowhere else to turn. They are very vulnerable and the safety net is going to be cut out from under them. I urge a ``no'' vote on this conference report.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Yitzhak Rabin, a great soldier, a great leader, a great man. I was honored to be in Jerusalem on Monday and humbled by the outpouring of affection and respect for the Prime Minister. It was not long ago that Israel was unfairly treated by some as an outcast among nations; yet on Monday, delegations from around the world embraced Israel and joined her in mourning the terrible tragedy, the loss of Yitzhak Rabin. The community of nations did this in part because Prime Minister Rabin made it impossible not to. When I think of the Prime Minister's contributions, I think of his vision, his resolve, his love of Israel, and his steadfast dedication to her secure future. Most of all I think of his courage, as a young man fighting for Israel's survival and, in later years, fighting for a just peace. He understood that doing what is right would bring contempt from some and considerable risk. But he thought of the generations yet to come. He knew that unless he gave leadership, his grandchildren, and all children--Arab and Israeli--faced a future fraught with peril. It wasn't possible not to be moved by the words of those who spoke at his funeral. And I will always remember the thousands of people lining the streets, filled with profound sadness and respect. Many told me that they felt comfort at seeing the outpouring of support from around the world. But the greatest tribute is still to come. That tribute will be in Israel's continued commitment to the peace process and in our Nation's unwavering partnership and support. My heartfelt wishes to Mrs. Rabin. May she and the family be comforted among the mourners of Zion.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I take this time to comment on the incompetent management of this House by the Republican leadership. We have had bills pushed through without hearings, without an opportunity for debate, without a chance to offer amendments. Today we have before us a continuing resolution, because the regular appropriations bills have not been passed in the regular order of the process in the Congress. Attached to this continuing resolution are two very offensive amendments. One is the Istook amendment, which would deny the opportunity for groups to lobby their own Government with their own funds. The second is the Medicare premium increase. This is an increase of premiums from $46.10 a month to $55, an increase of almost 20 percent of monthly payments by the elderly. Why this increase? It is certainly not to reform Medicare, it is not to protect the solvency of the hospital trust fund. It is, pure and simple, a way to take more [[Page H 11888]] money out of the pockets of the Medicare beneficiaries. Mr. Speaker, I find this whole way of conducting business unprecedented. The Istook amendment is tremendously offensive. We will have no opportunity to offer amendments to this intrusion into the first amendment rights of American citizens. I urge opposition to the rule, I urge opposition to the underlying continuing resolution, and I would hope the Republican leadership would try to get their act together, get the bills on the floor, give people a chance to debate them, and move through a regular, normal process.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to express publicly my respect for Robert Erickson, who is retiring from the Kaiser Permanente Medical Care Program this December after almost 37 years of service. Bob has been a leader in the establishment of [[Page E 2129]] prepaid group practice in the United States. His important personal contributions to the enactment of sound health care policy have been invaluable and have improved the Nation's health care delivery system. During the 25 years that I have known Bob, he has strongly supported health legislation that would extend coverage to all Americans and that would otherwise benefit the country as a whole, not merely an interested segment of the health care industry. The first question he would ask about legislation was whether it was good public policy; only then would he consider its impact on Kaiser Permanente. Bob's thoughtful advocacy on behalf of prepaid group practice has been partially driven by his belief that it is the most effective way of assuring that quality health care will be available to a broad spectrum of the community, including low-income individuals. I have appreciated his informed, ethical, and intelligent approach to government relations during my time in the California Assembly and in Congress. I have also appreciated Bob's efforts on behalf of the environment. As an outdoorsman, Bob recognizes the value of preserving this Nation's open spaces and biological diversity. He has been an active crusader for protection of the land, animals, and plant life for existing and future generations. I hope that Bob's retirement from Kaiser Permanente will not deprive Congress of his good counsel on future issues.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend by remarks. We have all seen the full-page advertisements being published by the R.J. Reynolds tobacco company in major newspapers around the country. I have brought one with me. It says: Actions speak louder than words. . . . R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company does not, under any circumstances, want kids to smoke. . . . R.J. Reynolds' policy, like that of all American tobacco manufacturers, prohibits the distribution [of cigarettes] to anyone underage. Those are RJR's words. Let us look at its actions. Last Friday, the TV news magazine, ``A Current Affair,'' showed the results of its investigation of RJR marketing practices at stock car races. This investigation showed that as recently as last month, RJR employees were giving free packs of cigarettes to 16- and 17-year-old girls. The ``Current Affair'' investigation also showed that RJR brings a kid's ride, called ``Camel's Smokin' Joe Ride,'' to each race. This ride, which simulates a stock car race, is very popular with young kids. During the ride, cigarette advertisements for Camel and Winston cigarettes flash across the screen and are viewed by the children. Mr. Speaker, I believe RJR's actions speak louder than words. At the very same time that RJR has been running advertisements that say children should not smoke, its own employees have been giving free cigarettes away to children, as well as showing cigarette advertisements to children. Mr. Speaker, I submit a transcript of the ``Current Affair'' investigation for the Record. [From ``A Current Affair,'' November 3, 1995] Race Smokes Narration by reporter Mike Salort: You may have been these national ads from R.J. [[Page H 11909]] Reynolds and probably heard their reassuring executives. Lynn Beasley, senior vice president in charge of marketing Winston and Camel cigarette brands, R.J. Reynolds. I hope no kid ever smokes, ever. I don't want kids to smoke. But at three of the company's famous Winston cup races in their own backyard--North Carolina--we found thrills, spills, and the company appearing to break its word. Christine Coltellaro, 16, Northern Virginia high school student, accepting cigarettes from a cigarette marketer: Do I keep these? Marketer. Yeah. Christine Coltellaro. Thanks. Our hidden cameras caught marketers hired by the company handing out Winston and Camel cigarettes to underage smokers--two girls 16 and 17 years old, who simply said they were over 21. Undercover video shots of the two girls getting cigarettes. It's a major embarrassment for tobacco giant R.J. Reynolds, maker of Camel and Winston brands. R.J. Reynolds on site marketing manager Jimmy Holder, as he covers the camera lens. Can we just stop this and talk of camera? ACA Reporter Salort. No, absolutely not. Why does he want our camera's off? This manager's company, R.J. Reynolds, has been caught at the worst possible time. President Clinton is trying to ban tobacco promotions from sports events because he feels they convince kids to smoke. The cigarette giveaway appears to be a graphic example of why the President is worried. Christine Coltellaro. Compared to getting them at gas stations or 7-Elevens, or quickie marts, it was pretty easy. Christine Coltellaro and Margie Bailey are underage smokers. We hired them to see if they could obtain promotional cigarettes at Winston Cup Races this fall. Christine Coltellaro. They said, ``Well, we need identification.'' I said, Well I don't really have any on me. They said ``Don't worry about it.'' In fact, listen close, this man says he's kidding. Cigarette marketer, handing cigarettes to Christine: I need to see a major credit card and a license. Christine. I don't have any major credit cards or license on me. Marketer. I'm kidding. ACA Reporter Mike Salort confronts marketer who has given cigarettes to the two girls. What are you told by the company that hires you. What you need to do before you give out---- Marketer. We're supposed to check ID. Salort. You are. Then you're supposed to have a picture ID checked. Marketer. Yes sir. Salort. You do that in every case? Marketer. If they look under 30, yes sir. Salort, pointing at the two girls. Would you say these two look under 30? Marketer. No sir. Salort. They don't look under 30? Marketer. I wouldn't say so. So he says these kids look like women in their thirties! We asked the same question of the R.J. Reynolds boss for the race. Salort, pointing at the girls. Would you say they look under 30? Jimmy Holder, RJR manager. Yes sir, I would. Salort. So, what's your policy here? Holder. Our policy is, we've told 'em all, we stress for everyone to card people who look under age. That's the official Reynolds policy anyway. Only who can produce a pack of their own, 21 and older are supposed to get the handouts. That's three years more than the legal age of 18, and it's true when we brought 13 year olds to the races, they were turned down. But it was a rare occasion when cigarette marketers refused our 16 year olds. ACA Reporter Mike Salort interviewing Rep. Henry Waxman, D- Calif. Salort, handing Rep. Waxman three plastic bags filled with cigarettes. Ok, you've seen the tape, and this was their haul from three separate races. What's your reaction to that Congressman? Waxman. There's a lot of cigarettes in this haul. The R.J. Reynolds company has run ads all over the country saying actions speak louder than words, and I think their actions on these tapes speak louder than words. As much as the cigarette giveaway makes him burn, Congressman Henry Waxman of California suspects it's part of a larger scheme to get kids to start smoking. Waxman. I just feel that the cigarette companies are hypocrites. R.J. Reynolds Senior Vice President Lynn Beasley. I am really deeply, deeply upset by it. She's Lynn Beasley, senior V.P. in charge of selling Camel and Winston brands. But flawed as she says her giveaway program was, Beasley denies it's part of a bigger scheme to expose kids to cigarettes. She says the sample smokes, the colorful booths, and the fancy merchandise are all for adults, and what about this . . . It's Camel's Smokin' Joe Ride, hauled to every Winston Cup stock car race. Inside that ride, on a screen in front, kids will tell you-- Young race fan, waiting in line for the camel ride: ``It's a simulator. You start out on a rollercoaster and you go to, like, different rides.'' Like an exciting car race video, jam packed with cigarette logos. Shot of Winston and Camel logos flashing across screen, Audio from ride; ``thank you for your support of Winston motor sports.'' And when it's over, step outside and find yourself conveniently close--to one of those cigarette booths. Lynn Beasley. We are not trying to appeal to kids. ACA Reporter Mike Salort. So who does this ride appeal to? Beasley. Adults. Ninety-seven percent of the people at these events are adults. Salort standup. Even so there are still hundreds of kids at these events being exposed to that colorful Camel campaign. It's emblazoned on sweatshirts, banners, even pins. It's a sponsorship the government wants to ban because it believes the campaign pushes kids to smoke. While R.J. Reynolds says giving cigarettes to kids was wrong, the company's Lynn Beasley makes no apologies for the festive tobacco marketing at sports events. Beasley. Advertising does not cause kids to smoke, it doesn't. Look at the facts. Every study that has been done, study after study, shows the reason kids smoke is because of peer pressure and family influence. Salort. Every study? Beasley. Yes! Incredibly Beasley says she hasn't even heard of a paper unveiled for the press just weeks ago, and published in the prestigious Journal of the National Cancer Institute. That report says promotions like these may well affect kids. It even says the number of kids smoking Camel's jumped after the introduction of the Joe Camel ad campaign, which Beasley worked on. Salort. Does it disturb you that there's a study out there that says that what you're saying is absolutely wrong? Beasley. I will take a look at it. I'm telling you, what I have seen is that the overwhelming evidence is that advertising does not cause kids to smoke. And for that reason, Beasley says her company will still sponsor sports events. But after seeing our footage, she plans big changes for her cigarette giveaway. Beasley. I think where we went wrong was not in absolutely requiring ID for everyone, regardless of what age they looked.