Henry Waxman

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, despite serious reservations, I will support the U.S. Free Trade Agreements (FTA) with Chile and Singapore. I support these agreements because I believe Chile and Singapore are valuable economic partners and strategic international allies. I have serious concerns, however, that the agreements also have a number of provisions that, while acceptable in the case of Chile and Singapore, set bad precedents for the future. Chile and Singapore are important markets for U.S. products and investment. As anchors of trade in Southeast Asia and Latin America, they are advanced economies with political openness and a growing middle class. The FTAs before us today are valuable because they offer a reduction of barriers to trade in financial services with Singapore, which is the largest U.S. export sector in Asia, and strong market access for U.S. goods in Chile. The agreements have strong intellectual property protections to fight the theft of copyrighted work and bold new measures to challenge digital and online piracy. These measures will help protect the driving force of creativity and innovation that has made entertainment and information technology the fastest growing sectors and the biggest exporting industries in the United States and in California. At the same time, the agreements unfortunately include provisions that set the wrong tone for the future of U.S. trade policy. I am concerned, for example, that because the U.S. Trade Representative's (USTR) model for automatic across the board tariff reductions in agriculture includes tobacco, the FTAs with Chile and Singapore could lead to an increase in cigarette consumption. Similarly, in the area of services, I am concerned that more exceptions should have been made for public utilities in order to safeguard government authority to protect consumers in the event of a crisis. I am deeply disappointed that the Administration refused to include the U.S.-Jordan FTA standards that require the enforcement of environmental laws and the adoption of labor laws consistent with the five core International Labor Organization (ILO) standards. While laws in Chile and Singapore may already meet these standards, the omission sends a wrong message that the basic principles of international workers rights and environmental protection are slipping from the U.S. trade agenda. I am also disappointed that the Administration did not use the Chile and Singapore FTAs as an opportunity to explicitly clarify that the investor-to-state provisions of the agreement do not give foreign companies greater rights than U.S. investors have under U.S. law. Even though the definition of expropriation in the Singapore and Chile FTAs is narrower than NAFTA, more changes are necessary to fix this distorted mechanism. Experience tells us that it is being abused to challenge U.S. regulatory and environmental law. Moreover, I strenuously object to the FTAs' grant of extended monopoly periods to pharmaceutical companies, during which they will face no competition from generic drugs. Many people describe these protections as a simple extension of the Hatch-Waxman legislation that applies to the American market to our trading partners, but this is a serious distortion of the bill I co-authored. Hatch-Waxman was passed to overcome existing regulatory barriers in the U.S. market to the approval of low-cost generic drugs. In exchange for this new authority, the law provided specified periods of exclusive marketing and patent extensions to pharmaceutical companies, allowing them to recoup development costs. The length of any exclusive marketing period, during which no generic version could be marketed, was tied to the degree of innovation represented by the drug. As a co-author of Hatch-Waxman, I cannot emphasize enough that this carefully balanced legislation represented a tailored solution to a specific regulatory problem in the United States. By adding these provisions to trade agreements, the USTR is heedlessly extending the exclusive marketing periods of Hatch-Waxman (and, in some cases, even more generous exclusive marketing periods) to other countries whose generic drug markets and health-care regulatory systems may look nothing like those in the United States. Although the impact of these protections may be limited in developed countries like Chile and Singapore it would be devastating in other countries that lack affordable and available life saving medicines and endure dangerous health epidemics. In voting for this legislation, I want to make it clear that the Chile and Singapore agreements should not be adopted as ``cookie- cutter'' prototypes for other FTA's currently being negotiated. The economic, social, and political diversity of Central America, Morocco, Australia, and the other countries slated for inclusion in the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas and the Southern Africa Customs Union are simply too diverse to be forced in the Chile and Singapore mold. International trade has the potential to raise the standard of living and quality of life for millions of people around the world. To achieve this, however, we must work for progressive, forward-looking agreements that not only expand markets, but protect worker and consumer rights and the environment. What is acceptable for Chile and Singapore will not be adequate in other countries. We must negotiate future FTAs to ensure that our citizens and our trading partners have the opportunity to experience the full benefits of free and fair trade.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. I rise in strong support of the Bishop amendment. Mr. Chairman, it is simply wrong to intentionally test pesticides on humans. Yet as we speak here today, the pesticide industry is doing just that. These studies don't stand up to scientific and ethnical requirements. In many cases, the pesticide industry conducts these studies overseas where it can more easily avoid public scrutiny and accountability. Often the studies are conducted without the informed consent of the test subjects. Sometimes, the test subjects are not even told they are being exposed to pesticides. For example, in Scotland one company paid volunteers to drink orange juice that contained doses of the extremely toxic insecticide ``aldicarb.'' Some of the participants in this study are now suffering ill health. They are embittered because they say they would not have participated had they known they were being exposed to pesticides. For most of the last 5 years, EPA has refused to consider these kinds of studies. Since the studies often violate the ethical standards that apply to most research, EPA has simply refused to consider pesticide studies conducted on humans. However in November 2001, we learned that EPA had departed from its previous policy and was beginning to use these unethical tests. Congress and the public were outraged. As a result, EPA reestablished a moratorium on using these studies. Unfortunately, just last month, the D.C. District Court of Appeals overturned the moratorium when the pesticide industry argued that EPA had made procedural mistakes in issuing the moratorium. EPA's procedural mistakes are no reason to allow industry to intentionally expose humans to pesticides. A number of religious groups including the Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life and the Washington Office of the Presbyterian Church have written to Congress today on this issue. Let me tell you what they say: We believe that it is deplorable and unethical to intentionally dosed humans with substances designed to be toxic, with no conceivable benefit to the subject, solely for eliminating or lessening regulatory safety margins. Mr. Chairman, Congress needs to act to stop this unethical and unscientific practice. The Bishop amendment addresses this important ethical issue by reestablishing the EPA moratorium in the coming fiscal year. Specifically, the amendment prohibits EPA from using studies which have intentionally dosed humans with pesticides. If EPA cannot use the studies, industry will have no incentive to conduct them. I commend the gentleman from New York for his leadership on this issue. I urge all Members to support the Bishop amendment.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, despite serious reservations, I will support the U.S. Free Trade Agreements (FTA) with Chile and Singapore. I support these agreements because I believe Chile and Singapore are valuable economic partners and strategic international allies. I have serious concerns, however, that the agreements also have a number of provisions that, while acceptable in the case of Chile and Singapore, set bad precedents for the future. Chile and Singapore are important markets for U.S. products and investment. As anchors of trade in Southeast Asia and Latin America, they are advanced economies with political openness and a growing middle class. The FTAs before us today are valuable because they offer a reduction of barriers to trade in financial services with Singapore, which is the largest U.S. export sector in Asia, and strong market access for U.S. goods in Chile. The agreements have strong intellectual property protections to fight the theft of copyrighted work and bold new measures to challenge digital and online piracy. These measures will help protect the driving force of creativity and innovation that has made entertainment and information technology the fastest growing sectors and the biggest exporting industries in the United States and in California. At the same time, the agreements unfortunately include provisions that set the wrong tone for the future of U.S. trade policy. I am concerned, for example, that because the U.S. Trade Representative's (USTR) model for automatic across the board tariff reductions in agriculture includes tobacco, the FTAs with Chile and Singapore could lead to an increase in cigarette consumption. Similarly, in the area of services, I am concerned that more exceptions should have been made for public utilities in order to safeguard government authority to protect consumers in the event of a crisis. I am deeply disappointed that the Administration refused to include the U.S.-Jordan FTA standards that require the enforcement of environmental laws and the adoption of labor laws consistent with the five core International Labor Organization (ILO) standards. While laws in Chile and Singapore may already meet these standards, the omission sends a wrong message that the basic principles of international workers rights and environmental protection are slipping from the U.S. trade agenda. I am also disappointed that the Administration did not use the Chile and Singapore FTAs as an opportunity to explicitly clarify that the investor-to-state provisions of the agreement do not give foreign companies greater rights than U.S. investors have under U.S. law. Even though the definition of expropriation in the Singapore and Chile FTAs is narrower than NAFTA, more changes are necessary to fix this distorted mechanism. Experience tells us that it is being abused to challenge U.S. regulatory and environmental law. Moreover, I strenuously object to the FTAs' grant of extended monopoly periods to pharmaceutical companies, during which they will face no competition from generic drugs. Many people describe these protections as a simple extension of the Hatch-Waxman legislation that applies to the American market to our trading partners, but this is a serious distortion of the bill I co-authored. Hatch-Waxman was passed to overcome existing regulatory barriers in the U.S. market to the approval of low-cost generic drugs. In exchange for this new authority, the law provided specified periods of exclusive marketing and patent extensions to pharmaceutical companies, allowing them to recoup development costs. The length of any exclusive marking period, during which no generic version could be marketed, was tied to the degree of innovation, I represented by the drug. As a co-author of Hatch-Waxman, I cannot emphasize enough that this carefully balanced legislation represented a tailored solution to a specific regulatory problem in the United States. By adding these provisions to trade agreements, the USTR is heedlessly extending the exclusive marketing periods of Hatch-Waxman (and, in some cases, even more generous exclusive marketing periods) to other countries whose generic drug markets and health-care regulatory systems may look nothing like those in the United States. Although the impact of these protections may be limited in developed countries like Chile and Singapore it would be devastating in other countries that lack affordable and available life saving medicines and endure dangerous health epidemics. In voting for this legislation, I want to make it clear that the Chile and Singapore agreements should not be adopted as ``cookie- cutter'' prototypes for other FTA's currently being negotiated. The economic, social, and political diversity of Central America, Morocco, Australia and the other countries slated for inclusion in the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas and the Southern Africa Customs Union are simply too diverse to be forced in the Chile and Singapore mold. International trade has the potential to raise the standard of living and quality of life for millions of people around the world. To achieve this, however, we must work for progressive, forwardlooking agreements that not only expand markets, but protect worker and consumer rights and the environment. What is acceptable for Chile and Singapore will not be adequate in other countries. We must negotiate future FTAs to ensure that our citizens and our trading partners have the opportunity to experience the full benefits of free and fair trade.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my support for H.R. 2800, the Fiscal Year 2004 Foreign Operations Appropriations bill. While I am deeply disappointed that the bill provides less than half of the President's request for the Global AIDS Fund and less than two- thirds of the money requested for the Millennium Challenge Account, I am encouraged by the launch of these bold new initiatives to provide vital assistance to the developing world. I also fully support the bill's bilateral assistance account, including $2.8 billion in economic and military aid for Israel, $1.9 billion in assistance for Egypt, and $456 million for Jordan, which has long provided a measure of stability in the Middle East and reinforced the Camp David Accord and the Israel-Jordan peace treaty. I have great ambivalence, however, over the bill's acknowledgement of President Bush's move to provide $20 million in direct aid to the Palestinian Authority Ministry of Finance. One the one hand, I believe the funds are necessary to reinforce the Road Map and the U.S. commitment to the governance of Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmood Abbas. Deposited to the Palestine Investment Fund (PIF), the money will shore up the work of newly appointed Palestinian Finance Minister Salam Fayyad and advance his effort to eradicate corruption and put Palestinian resources to work for development instead of violence. On the other hand, I am wary of providing direct aid while anti- Israel incitement continues an the Palestinian terrorist infrastructure remains in place. What guarantee do we have that this money won't go into the same black hole as all of the other international aid funds contributed since the beginning of the Oslo process? How can we be sure the money won't end up financing terrorism or corruption? Since the signing of the Oslo Accord the international community has invested more than $4.5 billion to organize Palestinian infrastructure. For the past 3 years, Arab and European donors have been transferring $45 million to the Palestinian treasury every month. Yet, even in the quietest days of the peace process, the Palestinian economy languished with high unemployment and stagnant growth. Palestinian companies created to provide services for the Palestinian people have done nothing but line the pockets of Arafat's henchmen. Corporations set up by the Palestinian Authority to manage telecommunications, energy, and phone service to the Palestinian people have been proven to be nothing more than fronts for money laundering and terrorist activity. At the same time, the results of Finance Minister Fayyad's work has been impressive. Teamed up with a host of international monitors, the PIF has undertaken an ambitious and critically important task of auditing all Palestinian Authority companies, replacing and reorganizing management, and operating all of the restructured firms through a centralized and transparent system. The effort has quickly become a proven method to cut off Palestinian Authority funds that were being used for nefarious purposes. Before the PIF was created, there was no way to monitor Palestinian Authority revenues or expenditures. For example, until recently taken over and audited by the PIF, the Palestinian petroleum company had been regularly used to fund the terrorist activities of Fatah and the Al- Aqsa Martyr's Brigade. Similarly, the PIF has stepped in to stop the Gaza phone company from cooking its books to write off ``expenses'' while never providing service to its customers. The steady stream of money for terrorism is finally drying up. The Israeli Government has already approved the PIF system to deposit Palestinian tax revenues that were long withheld until appropriate safeguards were in place to ensure the money did not end up in terrorist hands. It is our expectation that the direct aid to the PIF by the United States should be seen as a tenuous first step, as a confidence building measure. It is an expression of our commitment to help Prime Minister Abbas consolidate his mandate for a different Palestinian future. For too long, the Palestinian people have become dependent on terrorist organizations like Hamas and Islamic Jihad because Arafat's mismanagement denied them basic social services like education, water, and health. With this aid package, as instituted by President Bush, the United States hopes to set an example for the international community to direct all donations and investments to the PIF and distance themselves from Arafat's money trail of devastation and murder. I firmly believe, however, that the aid should not be viewed as a standing fund or a full resumption of ties to the Palestinian Authority. The President was only able to extend the grant with a waiver, which would still be required again before any additional aid could be considered. It is vitally important that Congress conduct vigorous oversight to ensure that the money is properly spent. We must also require clear benchmarks to evaluate when and whether additional aid should be considered in the future. The most crucial is that no additional aid should be considered before all security forces are under a centralized control of Prime Minister Abbas with all payroll payments to Palestinian Authority officers organized electronically and transparently through the PIF. President Bush's June 24, 2002, speech laid out the terms for a new Palestinian leadership untainted by terror to emerge. Progress can only be measured through security, cooperation and accountability.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I have had the opportunity to review this legislation from the prospect of two committees, as a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, which looks at the health impact of the threat of bioterrorism, as well as the Committee on Government Reform; and given the serious threat of bioterrorism, the development of effective countermeasures is vital to our national security. Project Bioshield represents the administration's proposal to encourage the development of these products, and I fully support the intent of this legislation. I also agree with its premise that when the market cannot foster the development of critical products by itself, the government must rise to the challenge. This bill is the product of collaboration between the majority and minority of three separate committees. Although the final bill may not be perfect, I believe the end product is one that all Members should support. The bill before us today includes several significant improvements from earlier proposals. For example, it includes important protections against waste and abuse that are standard for government contracts, such as preserving the government's rights to review contractors' books and records. The bill also permits the use of certain streamlined procurement procedures but only if the Secretary determines that there is a pressing need to do so. In emergency situations, we should not impede the development of necessary products. However, any exception from the standard procurement procedures should be made only when necessary and should be subject to review. This proposal preserves that standard. The provisions of Bioshield authorizing the emergency distribution of unapproved drugs and devices, whose risks and benefits are not fully tested, impose an unprecedented responsibility on the government. The FDA must be vigilant in protecting the public against unnecessary risks from these products. In part because of these concerns, the bill has been modified to require that health care providers and patients be informed that the products have not been approved and of their risks. The bill also has been modified to require that manufacturers monitor and report adverse reactions to the products and keep other appropriate records about the use of the products. These conditions are essential for the safe use of unapproved products, and they should be imposed in all cases, except in truly extraordinary circumstances. In addition, the Secretary is authorized to limit the distribution of the products, to limit who may administer the products, to waive good manufacturing practice requirements only when absolutely necessary, and to require recordkeeping by others in the chain of distribution. We expect the Secretary to consider the need for these additional conditions in each case and to impose them to the full extent necessary to protect the public from the risks of these products. The bill before us today is an improvement over the original proposal, and it deserves our support.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I control the time on behalf of the Democrats on the Committee on Government Reform, and I ask unanimous consent to yield the time that we have to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) to control that time.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. If Members listen carefully to the last speaker, the gentlewoman from Connecticut, I think they understand why we need this motion to instruct, because seniors need to know that the drug benefit is going to be a real one, not one that could depend on the whims of one insurance company or another. When the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) went through her explanation, she had 25 ways this will all work, this company will compete against that company. Well, the truth of the matter is these companies do not want to compete with each other, and that is why the Republican bill gives money to the insurance companies to try to get them to provide the benefit, rather than put it in as a benefit in Medicare, which is the way Medicare pays for doctors and hospitals and physical therapists and occupational therapists. So what we are hoping to do is have the conferees come back with the Senate provision that says, if all this insurance business does not work out as the Republicans hope it will, seniors can count on a prescription drug benefit being there. The second reason why we need this instruction to the conferees is we do not want the Republican conferees to use the prescription drug issue as a stalking horse to destroy the Medicare program as seniors know it and like it and want it to continue. They should not use this to undermine and privatize the Medicare program. We should not adopt provisions that will force a Medicare beneficiary to pay more simply to stay in regular Medicare, and we should not force them into a choice between paying more or entering a plan that takes away their ability to see their own doctor. I listened with much attention to what our Republican colleagues were saying in this debate, and it is Orwellian: ``We are going to reform an outdated program that is going broke.'' Well, this is not an outdated program. It is an excellent program. And it is not going broke, because every time there is a problem with that trust fund, simple changes can be made to adjust it so it stays viable. But if it is going broke, why did the Republicans give all that money away in tax breaks to millionaires? We should be using it to make sure Medicare will be there for the seniors that are on the program now and those who are going to be looking to it, especially the baby boom generation. The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), my friend, my chairman, said, ``Those Democrats are asking us to take the Democratic bill.'' We are not asking that at all. We are asking that we take the provision in the Senate-passed bill, which passed by a large bipartisan majority, rather than the provisions that passed by one vote, mainly Republican votes, in the House of Representatives. I think that we ought to cast away these Orwellian statements, like ``this will be like Federal employees,'' when we know it will not be the same. Let us instruct the conferees. Vote aye.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I think the points that have been made by some of my Democratic colleagues about the impact of the bill passed when we were last in session to cover prescription drugs for seniors is a point well taken. That bill is inadequate, and the reason we are passing this legislation is that we want to protect retired Federal employees. Well, we do want to protect them, but we have to protect them because we passed a Medicare prescription drug bill that will give incentives for employers, public and private, to drop insurance coverage for their retirees for prescription drugs. What in effect we are saying is we do not want Federal retirees to face the plight that other seniors are going to face when they are retired and their employers decide to let them go get their Medicare prescription drug benefit under the Republican-passed bill. It will be a lot less expensive, but it will be much less a benefit, in fact, a very inadequate benefit, for those retirees. That leads me, however, to say that we should oppose the bill that the Republicans passed for the Medicare prescription drug benefit and make sure that we pass a really decent prescription drug benefit for all Medicare beneficiaries. That is not to say that we ought to leave our Federal retired employees without the protections that we promised them, which is that they would have the health care plans that they paid into during their working years available to them as retirees. So I commend my Democratic colleagues for their pointing out the hypocrisy, and I support what they have to say, but urge, however, that we adopt this bill because we do not want to be against Federal retirees. But in doing that, we certainly need to acknowledge that the reason we are passing this legislation is because the prescription drug bill for Medicare that was passed by the House is so filled with holes and so inadequate.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I support the legislation that is before us today for one simple reason: Federal retirees deserve an adequate prescription drug benefit just like all America's seniors do. Without the protections of the bill before us, they face the possibility of losing what they have got. But let us be clear: This legislation is necessary because the prescription drug benefit for Medicare beneficiaries that was forced through the House by the Republican majority is inadequate and unresponsive to the needs of America's seniors and disabled persons. The President and House Republicans like to defend that bill by saying America's seniors deserve the same coverage that Members of Congress and the Federal workforce get, but nothing could make it clearer that their Medicare bill fails miserably to meet that test. The drug benefit our Republican colleagues are willing to give Medicare beneficiaries is filled with features that will be laughed out of the room if they were suggested for Federal employees. The Medicare bill contains large gaps in coverage, like the so-called donut hole, where beneficiaries have no coverage for their drug expenses. Once they have $2,000 in drug costs, coverage stops. Beneficiaries are stuck with the next $2,900 in costs, and maybe more. Oh, they get to pay premiums for coverage during that time. They just pay for nothing, because the program gives them no help, and whether coverage ever starts up again is uncertain. It will be a catastrophic situation for many of our seniors. The hypocrisy of claiming that Medicare beneficiaries deserve what the Federal employees health program has, and then give a prescription drug benefit that the Republicans pushed through which is so inferior, it is breathtaking. And, to add insult to injury, the Medicare benefit is designed so that any help from an employer reduces Medicare coverage. That leads to the likelihood that employers will drop drug coverage for their retirees and make people worse off. That is a very real possibility that makes the bill that is before us right now necessary. But what about those retirees in the same situation that this bill does not help? Federal retirees deserve to have adequate prescription drug coverage. They deserve to keep the benefits they have, but so do the rest of America's seniors and disabled people. We should live up to the rhetoric and make the Medicare benefit a good one: simple, comprehensive, certain, and affordable. It should truly be as good as what Federal employees have and Members of Congress have. The drug benefit in the Republican Medicare bill fails that test. That is the tragedy that that bill that is now before us highlights today.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to establish the Independent Commission on Intelligence about Iraq. This Commission is necessary to restore the confidence of the American public and the international community regarding the Bush Administration's use of intelligence information about Iraq. I am joined in introducing this bill by Representative Martin Frost, Representative Ron Kind, and 20 other members who supported President Bush when he asked for congressional authorization to use force in Iraq. We were allies of the President when he wanted authority to go to war. And we are allies of the President today in the ongoing fight against terrorism. For us, this issue is not about whether we were right to go to war in Iraq. We voted for the war resolution. And it is not about whether biological or chemical weapons will ultimately be found in Iraq. Instead, we are introducing this bill because it is now clear we had an inexcusable breakdown in our intelligence system prior to the Iraq war. We need to know how and why this happened, so that we can make sure it never happens again. We need to know whether the breakdown was caused by problems within our intelligence agencies, and whether they failed to do their jobs competently and responsibly. If, as some in the Administration have hinted, essential information was withheld from the President, we need to discover who did that and hold them accountable. If we find that the intelligence community did their job well, then we need to know whether Bush Administration officials either ignored or misused the intelligence information. At the end of the day, regardless of the consequences, we need to know what went wrong. We can't avoid the responsibility. President Bush is leading us in a new doctrine of preemptive warfare. While there is obviously disagreement over the merits of this approach, there is unanimity that preemptive warfare's essential ingredient is accurate intelligence. It can't be founded on theory or suspicion--it needs fact. Without that, the world will be unable to distinguish preemptive warfare from ordinary aggression. The House and Senate Intelligence Committees have already begun the process of assessing the intelligence community's performance, and the Independent Commission we would create here would supplement that valuable effort. It appears, however, that the Intelligence Committees will not be assessing how the Bush Administration used the intelligence information it received. Representative Porter Goss, the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said, ``I'm not going into what the customer did with the intelligence.'' I disagree with that approach, and that review will also be an important part of the Independent Commission's responsibilities. It is profoundly important that the President, the Vice President, and other senior Administration officials accurately portray intelligence information. There is no question more grave than whether our Nation should go to war. When the topic is whether to commit our armed forces to battle, Congress and the American public need to able to rely unquestioningly on the accuracy and veracity of the information from the President and other Administration officials. Unfortunately, serious concerns have already been raised regarding how the Bush Administration handled intelligence information on threats posed by Iraq in the months leading up to the conflict. One of the main questions that has emerged is whether White House officials manipulated or deliberately ignored key intelligence on Iraq. The Administration's responses to date have been incomplete and inconsistent, and have raised a host of new questions. For months, I have been asking a simple question: Why did the President cite forged evidence about Iraq's efforts to obtain nuclear materials from Africa in his State of the Union address? Yet I have been unable to get an answer to this basic question. Instead, the Administration has provided only murky and conflicting explanations regarding the use of forged evidence by the President and other top Administration officials. The first Administration explanation, as described in the Washington Post on March 8, 2003, was ``we fell for it.'' But we now know that wasn't true. Multiple press accounts have reported that CIA analysts doubted the validity of the evidence long before the President's State of the Union address and had communicated those doubts to the White House. Other press accounts have reported that State Department analysts also concluded in 2002 that the evidence was bogus. National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice then asserted that ``maybe someone knew down in the bowels of the agency, but no one in our circles knew that there were doubts and suspicions that this might be a forgery.'' But this also doesn't appear accurate. According to a June 30, 2003, New Republic article entitled ``The Selling of the Iraq War: The First Casualty,'' Vice President Cheney's office had received the forged evidence from the British in 2002 and had provided it to the CIA; the CIA in turn had dispatched a former ambassador to Africa to check its validity; the ambassador determined the evidence was unreliable; and the CIA communicated this report to the Vice President's office. Other accounts, such as those by Nicholas Kristof in the New York Times, reach the same conclusion. According to a June 13, 2003, Knight Ridder News Service report by Jonathan Landay: ``Three senior administration officials said Vice President Dick Cheney and some officials on the National Security Council staff and at the Pentagon ignored the CIA's warning and argued that Bush and others should include the allegation in their case against Hussein.'' The White House has asserted that the President's State of the Union address was closely vetted by intelligence officials. But if this is so, what did these officials communicate to the President and his White House advisors and how did the White House respond? NPR has reported that early drafts of the President's State of the Union address that contained the forged evidence were reviewed by senior intelligence officials, who objected to the inclusion of the evidence. According to NPR, the White House ignored their objections. Instead, the White House response was to keep the forged evidence in the speech, but to change the wording so that the evidence was attributed to British sources. Another question raised by the official White House account is why the White House hasn't taken disciplinary action against the CIA Director and other intelligence officials. If the White House was kept in the dark about something as fundamental as forged nuclear evidence-- as Condoleezza Rice maintains--this would be an extraordinarily serious failure by the intelligence community. Shouldn't those responsible face equally serious consequences? Other significant questions regarding the forged documents remain unanswered. For example, in some statements, the Administration has asserted that ``additional evidence'' supported the claim about Iraq's attempts to purchase uranium in Africa. Yet the only evidence the Administration provided to the IAEA to support its claims was the forged documents. And despite my repeated requests for this other evidence, the Administration has yet to provide it. What is the other evidence? And why didn't the President and other Administration officials cite to it instead of to the forgeries? And then there is the question of the December 19 fact sheet by the State Department. This fact sheet--which received front-page coverage in the media--repeated the fake evidence that Iraq sought to import uranium from Africa. When I wrote the President about this, the State Department responded as follows: ``The December 19 fact sheet was a product developed jointly by the CIA and the State Department.'' But according to a senior intelligence official quoted in the Washington Post, the CIA objected to the inclusion of the fake evidence in the State Department fact sheet but the objection ` ``came too late' to prevent its publication.'' Both of these accounts can't be right. A broad, independent investigation is necessary to answer questions like these. That is why we are proposing a nonpartisan Commission on Intelligence about Iraq. This Commission would examine the collection, evaluation, and use by the Administration of Intelligence on threats posed by Iraq, and make recommendations to Congress and the President regarding steps to enhance the accuracy of intelligence and representations regarding intelligence. The Commission would have the ability to recommend that its findings be made public. Unlike with congressional committees examining intelligence on Iraq, no political party would have an advantage on the Iraq Commission. Based on the model of the 9/11 Commission which was thoroughly vetted by Congress, the Commission on Intelligence about Iraq would be composed of five members appointed by Republicans and five appointed by Democrats. Some have tried to deflect efforts to explore questions about the handling of intelligence on Iraq as ``revisionist history'' or equated such efforts with questioning the war in Iraq. This is misdirected criticism. The purpose of the Commission is simple: to understand the truth. The Commission's effort should proceed regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with the ultimate decision to wage war in Iraq, and regardless of whether biological or chemical weapons ultimately are found there. The credibility of our government will remain in jeopardy if we do not resolve doubts regarding the handling of classified information on Iraq.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution and join my colleagues in condemning the ongoing Palestinian terrorist attacks that threaten to derail the renewed effort to bring Israelis and Palestinians back to the peace process. Since the Aqaba summit, 22 Israeli civilians have been murdered in terrorist attacks even as the Israeli Government has taken measures to release Palestinian prisoners, dismantle settlement outposts, allow Palestinian workers back into Israel and transfer revenue funds to the Palestinian treasury. This is not a cycle of violence. This is a cycle of terrorism where Hamas and Islamic Jihad bargain for a ``ceasefire'' so they can buy time to regroup and rearm. I was shocked, therefore, to hear President Bush condemn Israel's attack on Hamas leader Abdel Aziz Rantisi and Secretary of State Powell speak out against Israel's attempt to arrest other Hamas operatives. Although the Israelis are willing to take risks for peace, they have every right as a sovereign state to defend their vital interests. The United States, as a nation engaged in the global war on terrorist groups, should stand firmly with Israel on this issue. The same coffers that fund Al Qaeda funnel money and weapons to Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and the same state sponsors of terrorism that arm Hezbollah and smuggle mortars, explosives, and weapons into Gaza. I stand with the President's in support of a two state solution that will bring security and stability to the region. The reality is, however, that the future of the Road Map depends on the direction of the Palestinian leadership. Although newly appointed Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmood Abbas faces challenges, he has the ability to move in the direction of peace by shutting off the constant stream of anti- Israel hatred and incitement on Palestinian television and newspapers. Likewise, it the responsibility of the Arab states, the European Union, Russia, and the United Nations to support Prime Minister Abbas by joining the United States in isolating Arafat and shutting down the financing of terrorist networks that seek to undermine Palestinian reform. The Road Map for peace requires all parties involved to maintain a commitment to these principles and to understand that the cessation of terrorism is the first step toward that vision.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, today the House should be considering a Medicare prescription drug benefit for all America's seniors and disabled citizens that would be a benefit that is certain, a benefit that is affordable, and a benefit that helps Medicare beneficiaries with all of their drugs. It should not have large gaps in coverage as the Republican bill does. It should not let private insurance companies charge whatever premium they want and cover whatever drugs they want as the Republican bill does. It should be available in every part of the country, not only in areas where private insurers decide they can make a profit, and it should not cost seniors more if they live in Iowa instead of Virginia or California instead of Rhode Island. Most importantly, it should be a part of the Medicare program, just as dependable as the rest of the Medicare is for seniors and disabled people today. The Republican bill fails all of these tests. It makes promises on the one hand and then takes them away when we read the fine print. It claims to give special help to America's low-income seniors so that they can afford to pay for the prescription drug program, but then it makes seniors subject to a detailed and invasive assets test before they can get help. If they have over $6,000 in the bank, they do not get any help. When we figure out what they have got if they count the value of their car and it is worth more than $4,500, and what car is not? They do not get any help. They count the value of the clothes and furniture and appliances if they are worth more than $2,000. They can even count the value of their burial plot if it exceeds $1,500. So instead of making sure people of very modest income who need help to get in, they get the fine print eliminating a lot of these people who should be helped, and it makes all of them go through a demeaning and complex process to prove they have few assets. All this to get help with their drug expenses. This is just wrong. Instead of spending the public's money to get the best possible drug benefit, this Republican bill spends our dollars to bribe insurance companies to sell a drug plan. It pays for profits for the insurance companies instead of the bills for our seniors. What we should be doing is using the purchasing power of America's seniors, 40 million of them, to get good prices on their drugs as they do in Canada and get good coverage. That is what the Democratic substitute does. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Democratic substitute and against the Republican bill.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to commend the gentleman from Ohio for introducing this resolution commemorating the work of Wilbur and Orville Wright, who manned the first successful, controlled, and sustained power flight, and to signal that at this time we are going to celebrate, with a Festival of Flight in Dayton, Ohio, their accomplishments. It is fitting on the day that we commemorate Walt Disney for his flight of fancy that we also have the Festival of Flight for the Wright Brothers as part of the agenda on the schedule for today, as our rhetoric soars as well and flies ever higher in salute of great Americans. In October of 1998, this body passed a bill to establish the commemoration of the centennial of powered flight and the achievements of the Wright Brothers. The commemoration activities set forth in that bill will come to fruition this year with the Festival of Flight. The festival will consist of four events that will be held nationwide to celebrate the first flight of the Wright Brothers. The Wright Brothers originally had a bicycle store in Dayton, Ohio. They later moved to Kitty Hawk, North Carolina for the hills, strong and steady winds, and the soft, sandy ground, all ingredients for successful flight. They went back to Dayton and built a 6-foot wind tunnel to conduct experiments with over 200 different wing models. They developed the first reliable tables on the effects of air pressure on curved surfaces, the principles that we use today and that we see on every airplane. In 1903, the Wright Brothers completed the construction of a larger plane, powered by their own lightweight gas-powered engine, and returned to Kitty Hawk on December 17, 1903. Four men and a boy witnessed the first flight, a flight which dramatically changed the course of transportation, commerce, communication, and warfare throughout the world. I hope that the Festival of Flight will educate Americans to the achievement of the Wright Brothers and their contributions to the development of this Nation. I want to join my colleague in urging all of the Members to support this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner) has his children here with us today, especially in this tribute to Walt Disney, whose life and career meant so much to all children all over the world. It is a fitting tribute that we pay to him to name a postal facility after him in the town in which he was raised. I urge passage of the legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As a member of the House Committee on Government Reform, I am pleased to join my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner), in the consideration of a measure which names a postal facility after Walt Disney. H.R. 1610, which was introduced by Representative Sam Graves on April 3, 2003, has met the committee policy and has been cosponsored by the entire Missouri congressional delegation. Walt Disney was born on December 5, 1901. Shortly after his birth, his family moved to the peaceful town of Marceline, Missouri, where they lived in a small house on farmland owned by an uncle. It was during his boyhood years in Marceline that little Walt began to draw pictures. He continued to pursue his interests in art while attending McKinley High School in Chicago, Illinois. There he studied art, often selling his drawings to make extra money, and photography. At the age of 16, Walt tried to enlist in the military. Unfortunately, he was too young, so he joined the Red Cross and spent time driving an ambulance. It was not until after the war that Walt began to use his artistic talent as an advertising cartoonist. As a young man, Walt created his first animated cartoon and moved to Hollywood to create another first, an animated live-action film. From there, things continued to spiral up. Walt created three cartoons featuring a character he dreamed up, Mickey, as in Mickey Mouse. Walt Disney continued to make animated films, going on to create ``Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs,'' ``Pinocchio,'' ``Fantasia,'' ``Dumbo,'' and ``Bambi.'' Walt Disney went on to create theme parks and is a pioneer in animated film production. A long-time smoker, Walt Disney died of lung cancer on December 15, 1966. Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleagues for seeking to memorialize Walt Disney by naming a postal facility in his hometown of Marceline, Missouri. By all accounts, Walt cherished the time he spent in the little house on the farm. I want to say as a representative of Southern California, which is a place that we feel is very much part of Walt Disney's life, we have Disneyland, we have Disney Studios, we are soon going to have Disney Hall. We feel that it is only fair that we allow a post office to be named after him in the town in which he was raised. I urge my colleagues to pass this legislation. I think it is another of many tributes that this country can hope to pay, but never completely repay, Walt Disney for the enormous contribution he has made to America and to the world. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, the United States Tobacco Company has requested that it be allowed to market certain dangerous and addictive products as less harmful than cigarettes. UST would like to market these products immediately without regulation by a health agency. I recently obtained UST documents that speak to the clear need for effective and comprehensive regulation prior to any health claims for smokeless tobacco. Because it is in the public's interest to review the content of these documents, I am inserting them into the public record, along with a ``dear colleague'' letter I recently circulated, the UST response, and a letter I sent yesterday to House Committee on Energy and Commerce Chairman Billy Tauzin on this matter. April 28, 2003. Should Smokeless Tobacco Be Marketed as ``Reduced Risk''? Dear Colleague: In recent weeks, the United States Smokeless Tobacco Company, Incorporated (UST), the country's largest manufacturer of smokeless tobacco products, has begun to lobby Congress for permission to tell potential customers that using smokeless tobacco is safer than smoking cigarettes. The request follows a prior petition to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which UST has now withdrawn, in which UST proposed telling consumers: ``Many researchers in the public health community have expressed the opinion that the use of smokeless tobacco involves significantly less risk of adverse health effects than smoking cigarettes.'' It would be a serious mistake for Congress to endorse ``reduced risk'' claims proposed by UST outside of effective regulation of tobacco products. Attached are two documents from the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids on (1) smokeless tobacco and (2) UST's request to Congress. I would draw your attention to several key points: ``Reduced risk'' claims need to be scrutinized carefully. If new claims that smokeless tobacco is safer than cigarettes cause fewer smokers to quit tobacco altogether, or if these claims encourage non-tobacco users--especially young people-- to begin using smokeless tobacco products, any theoretical benefit to those switching from cigarettes to smokeless tobacco products may be undermined. That's why the Institute of Medicine and other experts who favor risk reduction strategies, including several tobacco control advocates cited by UST, actually believe that such claims should be made only with regulatory oversight. A regulatory system would allow close monitoring of health claims and assessment of the true impact on death and disease rates. The Swedish model does necessarily not apply to the United States. UST points to Sweden as a country with relatively high levels of smokeless tobacco use and relatively low levels of cigarette smoking. Yet Sweden's situation is considerably different. First, Swedish smokeless tobacco is a different product from the one that UST makes. Second, Sweden also has tight restrictions on tobacco products, including high taxes and a marketing ban. Third, Sweden does not allow health claims to be made for smokeless tobacco products. UST does not have a responsible track record. The U.S. Surgeon General, the National Cancer Institute, and other major scientific and public health agencies have concluded that smokeless tobacco poses significant health risks, causes oral cancer and other noncancerous oral conditions, and can lead to nicotine addiction. UST, however, has recently asserted that ``smokeless tobacco has not been shown to be a cause of any human disease.'' The company also has a long history of marketing to children, including flouting restrictions on marketing to minors and the addition of cherry, mint, and other flavorings that increase their products' appeal to youth. This record indicates the need for close regulatory oversight of any health claims made by the company. With cigarette smoking responsible for more than 400,000 deaths in the United States each year, there is reason to consider nonconventional strategies to save lives. However, these strategies should be based upon science and carefully monitored in a regulatory scheme to assure that they do not cause more harm than good. If you would like more information, please do not hestitate to contact Josh Sharfstein on the minority staff of the Government Reform Committee (202) 225-5420. Sincerely, Henry A. Waxman, Ranking Minority Member.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I seek time in opposition.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. This amendment makes a number of unnecessary and potentially harmful changes to Federal procurement law in the name of fighting terrorism. Most troubling is the authority it grants to all agencies--not just the Department of Defense--to use special simplified procurement procedures designed for commercial items for any good or service, regardless of cost. This means that full and open competition will not be used when purchasing these items. It also means that the government will not have access to important safeguards designed to protect taxpayer dollars on sole-source contracts below $15 million. We all want to fight the war on terrorism as effectively as possible, but the case simply has not been made that we need this bill. What agencies are having problems getting material or services to fight the war on terrorism? What exactly is it that they have been enable to get? I haven't heard that agencies are having any problems. The administration has not asked for these ``flexibilities.'' Maybe that is because existing law already has a great deal of flexibility. Waivers from almost all acquisition procedures are available to agencies for a number of reasons. Those include waivers for national security reasons, if there is an ``unusual and compelling urgency,'' and even if it is determined that it is ``in the public interest.'' All of these would seem to apply to fighting the war on terrorism. Under current law, when the government buys a good or service from a company, the government is entitled to receive cost and pricing data if that company is the only one that can provide the product to the government and if the value of the contract is over $550,000. The laws that require this information are the Truth in Negotiations Act. The Cost Accounting Standards are also a critical oversight tool. Congress wrote those laws to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse and they are critical safeguards needed to protect taxpayer dollars in the Federal procurement process. The amendment allows any agency--not just the Defense Department--to enter into sole-source contracts worth up to $15 million without requiring the contractor to provide accurate cost and pricing data to ensure that taxpayers are getting their money's worth. I think that is foolish and irresponsible, and I urge members to oppose this amendment.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I have some misgivings about this amendment, but the real point that I want to make is that we should have had an opportunity to debate radical, sweeping civil service changes for the DOD. It was wrong not to have that chance to offer an amendment to do that. In the motion to recommit, an employee bill of rights will be offered which will protect veterans' preferences, protect against discrimination based upon political opinion or affiliation, right to overtime pay, due process rights, and appeal rights. I hope Members will be willing to vote for that.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It is ironic, Mr. Chairman, that this amendment is made in order. It applies across the board to civil servants, but this is a DOD bill, and what the Republican leadership would not allow to be in order is a debate about the dramatic radical changes on civil service and procurement issues. First, with regard to the amendment before us, I have concerns about this Human Capital Performance Fund because I am concerned that the fund will be used as a ruse to slash annual pay raises for Federal employees. Mr. Chairman, three of my colleagues, though, were denied the opportunity to come to the floor and offer a proposal, which was such a common-sense approach, for restoring the fundamental rights of DOD employees without in any way hindering the Department's ability to perform its mission. The Cooper-Danny Davis-Van Hollen amendment would have protected due process appeal and collective bargaining rights. The amendment would have reaffirmed the importance of veterans' preferences and nondiscrimination based on political affiliation. These are the same fundamental rights enjoyed by other Federal employees and, indeed, by employees all around the country. Yet the underlying bill takes those rights away. They would not even allow the chance for these authors to propose this. Now, let me inform my colleagues that that Cooper-Van Hollen-Danny Davis amendment will be the motion to recommit, so Members will still have to vote on it. But the Republican leadership will not allow us to debate the Cooper amendment on the floor because they cannot defend their own bill. This is no way for the House to deal with one of the most sweeping civil service changes in history. What makes this process even more galling is that we are dealing with the rights of 700,000 loyal and hard-working DOD employees. They are the same employees who saw terrorists crash an airplane into their headquarters at the Pentagon, and they are the same employees who made enormous sacrifices to support the military efforts in Iraq. We have our basic priorities all wrong. At the same time that the House today is going to reward billionaires with unnecessary tax breaks, the Republican majority is passing legislation to take away health benefits from veterans and strip dedicated Defense Department employees of their basic rights. Of course, this is only the latest assault on Federal employees by the Bush administration. Federal jobs have been given to private contractors who are unsupervised and unable to do their job as effectively or efficiently as it would be public employees, and financial bonuses have been given to political appointees instead of career employees. If we are truly concerned about a strong national defense, we ought to open debate and make sure that we have a motivated workforce. I was also unable to offer an amendment requiring sole source contracts over $1 million to be covered by laws intended to prevent waste, fraud and abuse. Who is in favor of waste, fraud and abuse? Well, we would have given the chance for Members to make sure that that sort of thing would not happen. The approach of the leadership on the Republican side is unprecedented, and I want to use this time to protest it. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) to further talk about what is happening in this DOD bill.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to introduce the ``Ban Asbestos in America Act of 2003'' in the House of Representatives. This is the companion bill to a bill that Senator Murray is reintroducing today in the Senate. Senator Murray has been a real leader in addressing the harm that Americans continue to suffer from exposure to asbestos. I thank her for her hard work on this serious problem. We all know that asbestos can be deadly. It is a notorious carcinogen and causes other devastating diseases and disability. But what most Americans don't know is that this dangerous substance is still added, on purpose, to numerous products sold in this country. In 2001, companies in the United States used 13,000 metric tons of asbestos. Sometimes it seems that people trust their government too much. Many Americans reasonably assume that since asbestos is harmful and unnecessary, and since Congress and EPA have taken action on asbestos, it must be illegal to add it to products. They assume that new products are safe in terms of risks from asbestos. In fact, EPA tried to ban asbestos years ago, but was sued and lost on some technical grounds. The result is that people don't even know that some new products contain asbestos. And people don't realize that they still need to protect themselves against asbestos from these products. For example, many mechanics don't realize that asbestos is used in many brakes, exposing them and the public to dangerous asbestos dust. Asbestos is also still used in many roofing products and in gaskets. Continued exposure from new products is entirely avoidable--and this bill would fix the problem. The ``Ban Asbestos in America Act'' also addresses other urgent needs related to harm from asbestos. It requires EPA, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the Department of Labor to establish a national public education program about the dangers posed by products with asbestos. For example, many homes in the United States contain vermiculite insulation in their attics--but most homeowners don't know that this vermiculite is often contaminated with asbestos. Homeowners and workers need to be made aware of the risk. People must be informed that they should not disturb this insulation. Yesterday EPA issued a brochure, but we need to do more to get the word out on this and other risks. This bill also establishes a national registry for mesothelioma, a usually fatal form of cancer caused by exposure to asbestos. The registry will help scientists to better track and treat this terrible illness. The bill also authorizes funding for mesothelioma research and treatment. We have not yet finished our job of protecting Americans from exposure to asbestos. We need a ban and public education about the risks that will remain. I'm introducing this bill to get the job done and make this country a safer place for people to work and live.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in voting for Hon. Con. Res. 147, commemorating the 20th anniversary of the Orphan Drug Act and the National Organization for Rare Diseases. As the principal author of the Orphan Drug Act, I am extremely proud of what has been achieved as a result of this landmark legislation. Almost one in 10 of us is afflicted with what are called rare diseases, diseases that affect fewer than 200,000 people. And yet before 1983 if you were unlucky enough to suffer from such a disease, you had little or no hope that a treatment or cure would be developed. The market for a drug for an individual with a rare disease simply was not large enough for the pharmaceutical companies to justify the high cost of developing a potential treatment. The Orphan Drug Act was the first in a line of important laws that utilized creative new market incentives to encourage pharmaceutical innovation. No one was more important in the fight to pass orphan drug legislation than Abbey Meyers and the group she founded, the National Organization for Rare Disorders, or NORD. For the last 20 years, NORD has fought tirelessly for people with rare diseases, supported research, pushed for Federal funding and spread information about rare diseases. NORD's work, and the strides we have made against rare diseases thanks to the Orphan Drug Act, justly deserve to be honored in this resolution. I want to join my colleagues in urging that this matter be passed by the House.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a truly remarkable and accomplished group of young musicians in the 30th Congressional District who are part of the Calabasas High School Jazz ``A'' Band. The Jazz ``A'' Band has been named a finalist in the most comprehensive high school jazz competition in North America, which is produced by Jazz at Lincoln Center. Fifteen finalist bands will compete in the Essentially Ellington High School Jazz Band Competition & Festival, which takes place in New York City on May 17, 18, and 19, 2003. Over 1,200 bands in the United States, Canada, and American schools abroad registered and received the competition music. From that group, over 130 of those bands were able to submit a recording for the competition. Just 15 bands were then selected as finalists from these recordings. I am delighted that Calabasas High School is one of just 15 bands selected to compete for over $11,000 in cash awards at the competition finals. The three-day festival in New York will include workshops, rehearsals, a banquet dinner and jam sessions with members of the Lincoln Center Jazz Orchestra (LCJO). The competition will culminate on May 18 in a competition before a distinguished panel of judges, including composer, conductor, and Ellington authority David Berger, bassist and composer Rufus Reid, saxophonist, bandleader and educator Loren Schoenberg, and LCJO's Artistic Director Wynton Marsalis. The three top bands selected in the competition will then perform alone and with Mr. Marsalis as soloist. LCHO will then conclude the evening by playing an all-Ellington set. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Jazz ``A'' Band at Calabasas High School on being selected to participate in this very prestigious competition and to wish them the best of luck at the Essentially Ellington High School Jazz Band Competition & Festival.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, today I am again joining with Representative boehlert in introducing the ``Clean Smokestacks Act of 2003.'' This important legislation will finally clean up the nation's dirty, antiquated power plants. When I originally introduced the ``Clean Smokestacks Act'' with Representative Boehlert in the 106th Congress, we had a modest beginning. We had a total of 15 cosponsors and little attention. But by the end of the 107th Congress, the bill's supporters had grown to 135 House members. Senator Jeffords had successfully reported the companion legislation, the ``Clean Power Act.'' And even the Bush Administration, at least in rhetoric, recognizes that we urgently need to clean up these power plants. Electricity generation is our nation's single largest source of air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Nationally, power plants are responsible for about 35 percent of carbon dioxide emissions, 64 percent of sulfur dioxide emissions, 23 percent of nitrogen oxides emissions and 33 percent of mercury emissions. These four pollutants are the major cause of some of the most serious environmental problems the nation faces, including acid rain, smog, respiratory illness, mercury contamination, and global warming. If we are going to improve air quality and reduce global warming, we must curb the emissions from these power plants. When the original Clean Air Act was enacted in 1970, the electric utility industry argued that stringent controls should not be imposed on the oldest, dirtiest plants since they would soon be replaced by new state-of-the-art facilities. Although Congress acceded to these arguments and shielded old power plants from the law's requirements, many of these facilities--which were already old in 1970--are still in use. In some cases, power plants from 1922 are still in operation and have never had to meet the environmental requirements that a new facility would. As a result, a single plant in the Midwest can emit as much NOX pollution as the entire state of Massachusetts. The Clean Smokestacks Act says it is time to clean up these aging plants. The Act sets strong emissions reduction requirements for all four of the key pollutants from power plants, and it finally sets a deadline for old plants to install modern pollution controls. The Act allows for emissions trading to increase flexibility and reduce costs, where trading won't cause environmental harm. And the Clean Smokestacks Act promotes cost-effective energy efficiency and renewable energy measures, which help reduce pollution and save consumers money. This approach just makes sense. Because these power plants are so old and so dirty, cleaning them up provides tremendous benefits at reasonable costs. These requirements are one of the cheapest ways to get significant air quality improvements. And they finally provide a level playing field for new and old plants. At the same time, this approach gives industry the benefit of increasing regulatory certainty by targeting all four pollutants at once. Industry can make better investments if it knows what all of the emissions requirements will be over the next decade or so. Finally, the Clean Smokestacks Act recognizes that we need cleaner air, not regulatory relaxation, so it leaves the current Clean Air Act in place. Since we first introduced this bill, the President has unveiled a competing proposal, the ``Clear Skies Initiative'' or CSI, which he claims targets the same goal of cleaning up power plants. It's important to recognize, however, that the Clean Smokestacks Act and CSI are not similar proposals with different levels of stringency. Rather, they have fundamentally different purposes. The Bush Administration claims that their CSI proposal also targets the problem of aging power plants and provides certainty to the industry. It does neither, but it does rewrite significant portions of the Clean Air Act to weaken or delete important environmental protections. In contrast to the Clean Smokestacks Act, the CSI proposal does not guarantee that all outdated power plants will ever install modem air pollution controls. And, because CSI does not address carbon dioxide emissions, it cannot promise to provide the industry with certainty regarding future federal or state emissions reductions requirements. What CSI does do is rewrite key provisions of the Clean Air Act. CSI would repeal a requirement to reduce mercury emissions, limit the rights of states to protect themselves against out-of-state pollution, extend deadlines for areas to achieve clean air, and weaken protection for national parks, among other rollbacks. The real purpose of CSI appears to be weakening current Clean Air Act requirements for power plants and other sources, under cover of some looser and later emissions requirements. Not surprisingly, CSI is supported by industry, but is almost universally opposed by environmental groups. So let there be no mistake--the Clean Smokestacks Act in the House, and the Clean Power Act in the Senate, are the proposals to strengthen the Clean Air Act by finally closing the loophole for old dirty power plants and addressing all four pollutants they emit. In conclusion, let me commend Rep. Boehlert and all of the supporters of this legislation. I am pleased to be part of this bipartisan, bicameral approach to strengthening the Clean Air Act and protecting our environment.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate and honor the life of one of our country's leading disability rights advocates, Douglas A. Martin. UCLA and Doug's family will commemorate his remarkable contributions at a memorial on May 8, 2003. Doug's commitment to disability rights began in a very personal way. When he arrived for college orientation in a wheelchair, he was told he must pass a physical exam in order to be in good standing. When Doug did not pass the physical due to his disability from contracting polio as a child, he made a vow that he would pursue his education to make sure this would not happen to anyone else. Doug applied at UCLA and later graduated with the highest honors, earning his bachelor's and master's degrees simultaneously. He completed his Ph.D. in urban studies two years later. Doug went on to uphold his vow in a truly remarkable and sweeping fashion. He became a strong voice for our country's disabled population and helped shape our national disability rights policies. After graduation, he began his career as a pioneer in the field of disability rights, earning honors and praise from every level of government, the public sector, and private industry. Doug became an original founder of the Westside Center for Independent Living (WCIL) and developed a modern model for independent living. WCIL remains a leader in independent living skills and is an indispensable resource for residents of Los Angeles County. Doug was appointed to the State Council on Disabilities by Governor Edmund G. Brown in 1981, and was later appointed to the Governor's Advisory Task Force on Long Term Care, receiving the Governor's Trophy Award in 1985. As a member of the State Building Standards Commission, Doug was instrumental in the creation of California's seminal accessibility requirements. He also was a lead participant in developing Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990. Doug joined UCLA as a Special Assistant to the Chancellor in 1989, where he continued to work until recently. In this capacity, Doug initiated a disability overhaul for the campus. Doug's work resulted in UCLA adding access ramps, handrails and curb ramps in inaccessible areas, and providing volume amplifiers and special telecommunications devices on pay phones for the deaf and hearing-impaired. Evacuation chairs have been added in numerous buildings for use in emergency situations, and signs in Braille have been installed as well. Doug also oversaw the addition of accommodations for students with learning disabilities, including note-takers, disability counseling and peer- mentoring support groups. When Doug arrived at UCLA in 1989, 75% of the campus buildings were largely inaccessible to people with disabilities. Today, that number approaches zero, as almost every building has been modified to accommodate the disabled. In addition to Doug's work at UCLA, he has served on a number of important committees and has played a vital role in all of them. He was a member of the National Academy of Social Insurance, a member of Senator Barbara Boxer's Central District Judicial Appointment Advisory Committee, a member of the Advisory Committee for the National Council on Disability, and a participant in both the National Council on Disability Forum and the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Forum. Doug was a founding member of the Society for Disability Studies, a fellow with the World Institute on Disability, the chair of the Social Security Subcommittee of the National Council on Independent Living, and a member of the National Invitational Working Group. Our nation owes Doug a debt of gratitude for his profound commitment to the disabled and for leaving a legacy of action that will forever enrich their lives. I ask my colleagues to join me in acknowledging Doug's tremendous contributions and in expressing deepest condolences to his family, his colleagues and his friends.