Henry Waxman

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate Yom Hashoah, Holocaust Martyrs' and Heroes' Remembrance Day, which memorializes the six million Jews murdered by the Nazis during World War II. Each year this day is one of grief and hope. We mourn the innocent lives and vibrant communities destroyed while the world shamefully stood silent, and encourage the strides being taken to advance Holocaust education and the battle against resurgent anti-Semitism and intolerance around the world. We observe the anniversary of the Warsaw ghetto uprising, when a brave cadre of fighters battled a Nazi siege to liquidate the community's last remaining Jews, and resolve ourselves to provide comfort and support for the aging community of Holocaust survivors who continue to battle the horrors of their past. This year, as we mark the 50th anniversary of the dedication of Yad Vashem in Israel and the 10th anniversary of the founding of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, we have tremendous accomplishments to be proud of, but difficult challenges remain ahead. In European and Arab countries, where the dramatic rise of anti- Semitic and Holocaust denial is fomenting attacks against Jews and exacerbating tensions in the Middle East, we must do more to counteract the steady stream of hatred. In the United States and around the world, where elderly holocaust survivors are struggling to find adequate health and home care to alleviate the traumatic scars of their experiences, communities must join together to find ways to meet these vital needs. And in the vast settlements negotiated by the United States with European governments and corporations to atone for the crimes of slave labor and theft of assets, companies responsible for Holocaust-era insurance policies must be held accountable for their denials, delays, and stonewalling tactics against survivors and families seeking restitution. The wrongful denial of claims in violation of the standards set by the International Commission on Holocaust-Era Insurance Claims (ICHEIC) must be reviewed and overturned. Companies routinely extending the 90- day period allotted by ICHEIC to research the validity of claims into year-long sagas with no status updates to the claimant must be mandated to act more expeditiously. And most urgently, companies refusing to publish the basic policyholder information from their archives must be penalized for their inaction. Survivors who are still alive were only children when the Holocaust began. While many have vivid recollections about insurance agents visiting their home or policies their family spoke of, few have documents to identify the right company and cannot do so because the companies haven't provided comprehensive lists for them to search for the names of their parents and relatives. As a result, more than 80 percent of the claims filed with ICHEIC are incomplete, and barely 2 percent of the over 88,000 claims submitted to ICHEIC have received offers. Today I am encouraged that some progress is being made. This week, the German insurance industry agreed to publish the names on 363,232 policies issued by German companies to people identified on a comprehensive list of Jews who lived in Germany before the war. This is a vast improvement over the meager 308 policyholder names previously made available from Germany's largest insurer, Allianz. More must be done, however, to get Generali, Axa, Winterthur, and Zurich to live up to their responsibilities as ICHEIC members. In November 2001, when I organized a hearing on the Government Reform Committee to shed light on these problems, Axa had provided 191 names to ICHEIC, Zurich had given 40 names and Winterthur just 31. Generali, a company that was the most popular pre-war insurer among Jews in Poland and Hungary, had released only 8,740 names out of the nearly 90,000 policies in effect when the war began. It is unacceptable and reprehensible that these companies have still not taken any steps to provide more information. We must pressure these companies to do more. If they will not open their archives voluntarily, we must compel them to do so by supporting the implementation of state laws like California's Holocaust Victims Insurance Relief Act or the enactment of federal legislation like H.R. 1210, the Holocaust Victims Insurance Relief Act, which I introduced earlier this year. Justice delayed is justice denied. Today, on Yom Hashoah as we mourn the victims of the Holocaust we must renew our determination to help the remaining survivors attain justice in their lifetimes.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, today the House of Representatives passed legislation authorizing a smallpox vaccine compensation program for first-responders. The legislation we passed today is an improvement over the legislation that the House rejected several weeks ago. Under the plan we passed today nurses, firefighters and other first- responders will not have to rush to be vaccinated in order to make an arbitrary deadline for compensation eligibility. First-responders who are permanently disabled as a result of the smallpox vaccine will receive a portion of their wages that is not subject to a lifetime cap. And first-responders who are out of work for more than ten days will receive reimbursement for lost wages from the first day of work that they missed. These are important improvements. However, the program still falls short and I am disappointed that the Administration nickeled-and-dimed first-responders throughout this process. The Republicans refused to guarantee these brave men and women who volunteer to take the smallpox vaccine to protect all of us in case of a bioterror attack at the same level of compensation that would be available to members of Congress if we are injured on the job. Nurses, firefighters, and police officers deserve a better law than this. Given that the risk of injury from the vaccine is several tens per million, and the Administration only expects to vaccinate several million, ensuring full and fair compensation would certainly have been affordable. I want this program to work. I want first-responders to have adequate access to compensation so they feel comfortable about taking the smallpox vaccine. If this program is going to succeed, the Administration is going to have to make good on promises it made to us that it refused to put in the legislation. These promises include: assuring adequate funding so that states can provide appropriate education and screening of first-responders volunteering for the vaccine; indexing the annual cap on wage replacement to inflation; and allowing first-responders who are injured by the vaccine to deduct their compensation from their federal taxes. In response to concerns that the legislation does not allow for judicial review of compensation determinations, the Administration has said that the Secretary of Health and Human Services intends to run this program in a fair and generous way. Ensuring that these promises are fulfilled is a critical component of meeting that pledge. I would like to thank Representative Capps, Representative Dingell, Representative Brown, Senator Kennedy and others, as well as their staffs, for their commitment to this issue and for working with me for the last six months to improve this program so that first-responders will have some assurance that if they are injured by the smallpox vaccine, they will receive at least some measure of compensation.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, in a few days, the Bush Administration's modifications to the Federal medical privacy rule will be in effect. Federal medical privacy protections are important for protecting the integrity of our health care system. Many Americans have been taking counterproductive steps, such as giving inaccurate information to their physicians or avoiding health care altogether, because of medical privacy concerns. The medical privacy rule issued by the Clinton Administration in December 2000 established a sound foundation for addressing the complex issues relating to medical records privacy. Unfortunately, the Bush Administration's changes to the rule opened up significant loopholes in medical privacy protection. The Bush Administration eliminated the rule's requirement that individuals must provide consent before their personal health information can be used for treatment, payment, and a broad category of activities called ``health care operations.'' The Bush Administration also decreased privacy protections relating to marketing activities by removing privacy protections for activities that most consumers consider to be marketing. In addition, it changed the rule to allow disclosures of health information without patient consent to drug companies and other entities regulated by the FDA for a wide range of purposes. The December 2000 rule, in contrast, allowed such disclosures only for a narrowly defined list of health-related activities such as reporting adverse events associated with drugs. That is why I am joining my colleagues Reps. Markey, Dingell, and Rohrabacher today in introducing the Stop Taking Our Health Privacy Act of 2003. The STOHP Act would: (1) reinstate the December 2000 rule's patient consent requirement for treatment, payment, and health care operations while ensuring that this requirement does not undermine essential health care activities such as filling prescriptions and making referrals; (2) strike the Bush Administration's definition of ``marketing,'' thereby ensuring that the rule's privacy protections apply to activities consumers consider marketing; and (3) eliminate the broad exemption the Bush Administration created that would have allowed disclosure without consent to drug companies, while ensuring that disclosures essential for public health purposes are allowed. I am pleased that this bill has bipartisan support. Medical privacy should not be a partisan issue. I hope to continue to work with both Democratic and Republican colleagues to remedy the harm done by the changes to the rule and to promote vigilant enforcement by the Administration of the privacy protections that remain. I will also continue to press for additional protections to ensure appropriate disclosure and use of individuals' health information.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, even though there is no opposition to the amendment.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, the majority is proposing the biggest change to our Nation's electricity laws since the 1930s. Unfortunately, they do this while ignoring the corporate abuses that we have seen over the last few years. Let me tell the Members, those of us from California have seen these abuses in a major way. By some accounts, California has lost $40 billion due to energy company manipulation and FERC inaction, and the State will never likely be made whole. Deregulating the energy companies further when they have acted so irresponsibly in the past makes little sense to those of us in the West, and it is something the rest of the country ought not to invite upon their ratepayers. A national energy bill should ensure that what happened in California never happens again. This bill makes it more likely. The energy companies argue that what happened in California and other States was simply an insufficient supply combined with a bad State law. Well, it was a bad State law, but they are not telling us the whole picture. We now have proof that companies intentionally mapped the electricity markets to increase prices. The remedy for corporate fraud is vigorous government supervision. Lax regulation, which this bill would provide, can lead to rampant price-gouging, as California experienced during its crisis. But this bill moves towards deregulating the energy industry and does so without adding needed protections. The substitute offered by my colleague and friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), contains what is necessary to address the corporate abuses that have so harmed the Nation. This substitute will make it unlawful to engage in the types of fraudulent, manipulative, or deceptive acts that have hurt Western families. Then it gets tough on crime by upping the criminal and civil penalties and providing treble damages. Unlike the bill before us, these penalties will actually make it uneconomic for energy companies to manipulate the market in order to gouge consumers. The substitute will also require the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to carefully review market-based rates annually to ensure that they are just and reasonable. The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) said if Members are worried about all these other parts of the energy industry being regulated, they ought to oppose the Dingell amendment. What he does not point out is that only if they are committing fraud will they be covered under the Dingell amendment. We should support that. Mr. Chairman, we should make it unprofitable to engage in the kind of fraud and manipulation of the markets that we have seen in California. Without the Dingell substitute, the bill before us invites more price- gouging, more deceptive practices, more fraud. I urge support for the Dingell amendment.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Boehlert-Markey amendment. I strongly believe that we need to increase CAFE standards and that our country needs to be heading towards more fuel efficient vehicles. I will support this amendment and I urge all members to support it as well. However, since it is clear that this amendment lacks the votes in the House to pass, I am particularly disappointed that the Republican leadership did not permit me to offer an amendment I had offered at Subcommittee and Committee that would address our oil dependence in another way. My amendment would have allowed us to keep faith with our American troops by beginning to address our nation's dependence on foreign oil. My amendment would have directed the President to implement a plan to reduce U.S. demand for oil by 600,000 barrels per day. This is the average amount of oil we have imported every day from Iraq over the past five years. The President can rely on voluntary measures, regulations, or other means. The amendment does not provide any new authority for funding, but the President can come back to Congress to request that if he needs it. And the President need not meet the full target if he finds and certifies that there are no practical opportunities to further reduce the waste of oil. In no way would my amendment have undone or precluded the many measures in this bill designed to boost domestic oil production. These measures include two separate federal grant programs for onshore and offshore production, as well as exemptions for oil and gas activities from the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Clean Water Act. And although I oppose it, the bill includes oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, as well as numerous other provisions to encourage production on public lands. Also, nothing in my amendment would have mandated or provided new authority for any increase in vehicle fuel economy standards. Instead, my amendment would have attempted to eliminate the waste of oil in this country. I'm not going to belabor statistics today. But there are three points I want to mention. First, the United States holds 3 percent of the world's oil reserves, but we consume 25 percent of annual worldwide oil production. Second, over the past five years, we have imported on average 600,000 barrels of oil per day from Saddam Hussein and Iraq. This means that third, we have sent over $5 billion per year to Saddam Hussein and Iraq. At least part of this money was used to purchase the weapons that are now firing at our troops. I sought to offer my amendment because this legislative exercise is almost surreal. We are at war with Iraq, and millions of Americans believe that this war is about oil. We have a bill before us that reinforces this belief. In almost 400 pages, there is nothing that focuses on the easiest and most common-sense step we can take-- eliminating the waste of oil in this country. Now, let me be clear about what I would call for. By eliminating the waste of 600,000 barrels of oil per day, we're talking about a 2.5 percent reduction from projected demand. Let's think about how easy that would be to achieve. For one thing, we could keep the tires on our vehicles properly inflated. This could save up to 200,000 barrels per day--one-third of the target. Upgrading air traffic management systems could save another 50,000 barrels a day, while reducing flight delays. Weatherizing homes heated with oil could save over 80,000 barrels/day. And perhaps each one of us could think about whether we really need to make that extra trip to the store. These are just a few of the many, many things we could do to reduce waste. When Californians faced the energy crisis, the Governor called on them to reduce demand for electricity by 10 percent. They did it and averted further blackouts. I believe that if the President called on Americans to support our troops by using oil wisely, Americans would response enthusiastically. So I want to ask my colleagues, is this modest savings really beyond our ability to achieve? Are we really so beholden to the oil industry that we are actually in favor of wasting oil? My amendment would have asked us to make the smallest of sacrifices. And this is at a time when we are asking 250,000 of our servicemen and women to give, potentially, the very greatest sacrifice of all. When I offered this amendment at subcommittee markup, no Americans had died in Iraq. Now, sadly, over 100 Americans have sacrificed their lives in this war. I know that every person in this room wants to do his or her part to keep faith with our brave troops. Our part, and our obligation, is to make sure that no American has to risk his or her life fighting needlessly for foreign oil. Unfortunately, we will not even have the opportunity to debate and vote on my amendment.

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

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I certainly support the amendment that the gentleman and I are being allowed to offer today, even though it is not what we voted out of committee. It is a study resolution. I do not think anybody can object, should object to it or would object to it. But I wanted to use this opportunity, since I had some time on our side, to express my feelings about the whole energy bill and the process by which this bill is being rammed through the Congress.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to thank the gentleman from Virginia for his efforts on this energy bill. It has been a pleasure to work with him on these issues on a bipartisan, collegial basis. Together, we have attempted to seriously examine the Nation's energy policy and provide some commonsense changes that would improve Federal energy management. The Committee on Government Reform is the committee of jurisdiction for Federal Government management and procurement, and the committee unanimously adopted a bill addressing energy-related Federal management and procurement issues. In particular, the committee carefully examined the existing programs that are intended to encourage the Federal Government to use alternative fuel vehicles and reduce the use of gasoline. The committee found that the existing program does not work. Agencies are using taxpayers' money to buy vehicles that can run on alternative fuels, but then they are operating them on gasoline, defeating the whole purpose. Thus, the committee unanimously adopted, and I want to underscore that, unanimously adopted provisions to address this problem by allowing agencies to acquire fuel-efficient hybrid electric vehicles and by creating an incentive for agencies to use alternative fuels. We also worked out on a bipartisan basis a plan for increasing the use of clean, renewable energy by the Federal Government. Despite the committee's actions, the committee's provisions were not included in the base bill. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) and I filed these provisions as a floor amendment, but it was not made in order. The amendment that we are now debating contains only a few minor study provisions adopted by the Committee on Government Reform. In other words, this bill is so relentlessly and excusably pro-consumption, pro- production, pro-exploitation of energy that we are not even allowed to debate bipartisan amendments that would modestly reduce Federal energy consumption. As offensive as this is, this is only one of many egregious aspects of the procedure we are following today; and as bad as the process is, the substance of this bill is even worse. Last Congress I opposed the energy bill because it provided massive subsidies for energy industries and forced our constituents to pay the tab. That bill was offered with a brazen disregard of taxpayers, consumers, the environment, and the real energy needs of this country. Now, we have seen Enron fall, we have proof of rampant price gouging in the West, and we are in the midst of a war in Iraq. After all this, we are debating an energy bill that is even worse than the last one. I have to wonder if we are really capable of learning from experience. Once again, this bill is a massive payback to oil and gas, coal, nuclear, and utility industries; and the subsidies in this energy bill are even more skewed toward the energy industry. This bill is also so laden with environmental giveaways to energy industries. For example, oil and gas companies, such as Halliburton, will get exemptions from the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act. Taxpayers will pick up the cost of refineries' compliance with the Clean Air Act. States and the public will have less input on pipelines that will degrade our coasts. The bill rigs the hydroelectric dam relicensing process against Native Americans, fishermen, farmers, cities, and environmental advocates; and the bill tramples State authority to apply environmental protections in siting transmission lines. This bill also ignores reality and our real energy needs. We have learned that energy companies have fraudulently price gouged families, yet this bill does not address fraudulent acts. We have learned that oil companies are responsible for polluting critically important sources of drinking water, yet this bill would protect them from the consequences of their actions. We have learned that energy deregulation can lead to higher prices and declining service, yet this bill pushes deregulation forward, heedless of the risks. We have learned almost daily of new impacts from global warming as icebergs break free and habitats retreat, yet this bill pretends it is not happening. We have learned that with only 3 percent of the world's oil reserves, the United States can never drill its way to independence from Middle Eastern oil, yet this bill does nothing to meaningfully address our dependence on that oil. We must wake up. We are at war, and most people believe this war has something to do with oil. After all, Iraq is the seventh largest oil-producing country, and Saddam's wealth and power come from oil. The weapons that are still killing our young men and women were purchased with oil revenues. I filed a very simple common-sense amendment to begin to address our dependence on oil. It would direct the administration to reduce waste of oil by the amount that we are importing from Iraq each year. Who could support wasting oil? Well, apparently the majority in this body. They have just voted to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, yet the House is not even allowed to debate a proposal to reduce oil waste. This is a bad process and a worse outcome. As we wage this war in Iraq, we have been largely isolated because of our failed diplomatic efforts. This diplomatic failure did not happen overnight. The foundation was laid when the President rejected the global warming treaty, a priority for most of the world. Subsequent unilateral rejection of the treaty after that treaty, and other treaties after that, only helped to ensure international distrust of the United States. I offered an amendment expressing the sense of Congress that the United States should reengage in international negotiations on global warming, not accept the Kyoto Protocol, just carry out the promise that President Bush made to pursue an alternative. This language was unanimously accepted yesterday by the Committee on Foreign Relations in the other body, the Senate, but the House does not have the chance to debate a single measure on global warming, even a consensus one with bipartisan support like I proposed. It is time for us to admit that our foreign policies and our energy policies are not severable. We cannot set the Nation's energy course while ignoring interactions with the rest of the world. This legislation does not represent reality in America today, it represents only the reality of a lobbyist-filled reception room and smoky back rooms here in Washington, D.C. I will be opposing this energy legislation. I hope other Members will join me in doing so as well. Perhaps if a majority of us reject the energy bill, we can get back to work on meeting the real needs of our country in dealing with trying to break away from our dependence on oil and other energy resources. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, today we solemnly commemorate the 88th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide, in remembrance of the Ottoman government's campaign of devastation and destruction against its Armenian population. We commemorate this somber anniversary to honor the memory of the victims of the Armenian Genocide, and pay tribute to the survivors who rebuilt their lives. We join together to renew our conviction to fight the sources of bigotry, intolerance, and historical revisionism that have tried to distort and diminish Armenian suffering. Over the course of 8 years, beginning in 1915, Armenian communities were terrorized and systematically destroyed. One and a half million men, women, and children were murdered and nearly one million other were deported. If the world had cried out at the bloodshed of Armenians, it may not have been silent during the Holocaust. The road from Armenia to Auschwitz was direct. Only by shedding light on this dark chapter of history, can we vow once more that genocide will never again go unnoticed or unmourned.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1036. This bill is special interest legislation of the worst kind. It would grant extensive immunity from liability to gun manufacturers and gun dealers. Under current law, gun manufacturers and gun dealers must act responsibly. Like other businesses and individuals, if they act negligently--or if they blatantly disregard the obvious consequences of their actions--they may be held liable. H.R. 1036 would eviscerate this protection. The bill says to gun manufacturers and gun dealers: go ahead and ignore common sense, disregard the consequences of your actions, and we will let you off the hook. You are no longer responsible for your actions. This special exemption will endanger our citizens and almost certainly cost lives. Furthermore, this bill is drafted so broad and carelessly that it could extend complete immunity from liability to gun dealers--even if they sell weapons to suspected terrorists. To resolve that ambiguity, I offered an amendment in the Rules Committee to ensure that gun dealers are held accountable when they sell weapons to people they know or suspect are members of terrorist organizations, or people they know are likely to supply these weapons to terrorist organizations. But the Rules Committee refused to allow debate on my amendment. This is simply inexplicable. My amendment would clarify that gun dealers who sell to terrorists are not shielded from liability. Are we so captured by the gun industry that we want to immunize the industry from liability even when terrorists are involved? There is an exemption in the bill that would hold dealers liable if they know or should have known that a buyer would use the weapons to injure himself or others. But what about the more dangerous prospect of a suspicious buyer who is acquiring the weapons to give to someone else in his terrorist organization. These is an exemption in the bill to preserve civil liability if the dealer is convicted of ``knowingly'' assisting the commission of a violent act. But what about a gun dealer that has a strong suspicion-- not definite knowledge--that the weapon is going to end up in the hands of a terrorist organization. This is precisely the difference between criminal conduct and civil negligence. Our civil liability laws require that people act reasonably, even if there is no criminal penalty. And this is exactly the protection this bill would eliminate. We are in a war against terrorism. The last thing we should do is immunize gun dealers who traffic with suspected terrorists. Yet that is just what this bill does. It is dangerously shortsighted that the Rules Committee blatantly ignored an opportunity to fix it. Civil liability should be determined based on a comprehensive review of all the relevant circumstances. But there should be no impregnable shield to liability, because that only encourages careless and reckless behavior. This is wrong, and it is dangerous. That's why this bill must be defeated.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I think we have made our point on this amendment. We will have this issue out there for further consideration at another time; but in the interest of moving this legislation forward and getting a good bill enacted into law, I will withdraw my amendment. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my amendment.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I support S. 380. The bill strengthens the Postal Service, lowers their debt, and protects postal consumers. The legislation, however, is not perfect. In particular, I do not believe that requiring the Postal Service to pay the pension costs associated with the military service, the previous military service of their employees, is a good idea. Under current law, the Department of the Treasury pays the costs of retirement benefits related to military service for employees who are part of the Civil Service Retirement System. My amendment would maintain the status quo, keeping the responsibility for paying these costs with the Federal Treasury where they have always been, and where they belong. In contrast, S. 380 shifts the burden of paying these costs from Treasury to the Postal Service. The legislation even has the effect of requiring the Postal Service to reimburse the Treasury for payments that have already been made. This shift will require the Postal Service to pay billions more than it otherwise would have to pay. I believe it is wrong and unfair to require the Postal Service to shoulder this burden. Many believe that the Postal Service should run more like a private business, yet no private business, including the Postal Service's competitors, is required to pay benefits for military service. S. 380 would also make the Postal Service the only entity in the Civil Service Retirement System that has to pay for military benefits. I will not seek a vote on this amendment because, for reasons that I do not understand, the White House has signaled that it would oppose this legislation if my amendment were included. Thus, the result of adopting the amendment would be to bring down a bill that has many other worthwhile components. Instead of pursuing this amendment, S. 380 contains language that we worked out with the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Davis) that calls for a study of whether the Department of the Treasury or the Postal Service should be responsible for pension costs associated with military service with reports to the Congress. I do not believe this study language is as good as my amendment, yet at least it preserves this issue for further consideration. Under the language of the study provision, the submission and evaluation of the proposals regarding military pension are timed to coincide with our review of the Postal Service's proposed use of the savings resulting from this legislation. I hope that at that point in time, we will reconsider our approach toward military costs. At the appropriate time, Mr. Speaker, I will seek to withdraw this amendment. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. I thank everybody involved with this legislation for their efforts. I think this is a bill that we can all look at with pride. Mr. Speaker, we have no further requests for time on our side, so I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), a very important member of our committee.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), the ranking Democrat on the Postal Task Force of the Committee on Government Reform.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time that I may consume. I rise in support of the legislation before us. As the ranking member of the Committee on Government Reform, I support this bill, S. 380, and before I begin my remarks on the bill, I would like to commend my colleagues, the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Tom Davis) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) for the time and effort they have spent in refining this proposal. The bill in S. 380, is identical to the version of the bill we reported out of committee with the exception of a provision requiring a new study on military pensions that I worked out with the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Tom Davis). This is a very positive bipartisan start for our committee. I would also like to commend our Senate colleagues, Senators Susan Collins and Joseph Lieberman, for their work on this issue. The bill we are considering today corrects the calculation of the Postal Service's contributions to its pension fund and provides immediate and needed financial relief to the Postal Service. The legislation would credit the Postal Service for the real value of Civil Service Retirement System contributions it made in the past and change how contributions will be computed in the future. Under S. 380, the Postal Service will save $9 billion over the next 3 years and $36 billion over the next 10 years. S. 380 divides the money saved by the Postal Service into two parts. For the savings received in fiscal years 2003, 2004, and 2005, the bill provides that the Postal Service will use the money to pay down the debt and hold postage rates stable. This will allow the Postmaster General to keep his commitment to hold off on any rate increases through the year 2006. For fiscal years beyond 2005, the bill requires the Postal Service to submit to Congress a plan for using the savings. This plan must then be reviewed by the General Accounting Office and approved or modified by Congress. The planning provisions contained in the bill provide an opportunity for Congress to review how the Postal Service will use the savings to address a number of long-term challenges facing the service such as its debt load, underfunded capital projects, and unfunded liabilities for post-retirement health care. This legislation is being acted upon quickly because without it, the Postal Service faces an increasing financial crises. In fact, the Postmaster General and the Postal Board of Governors have indicated that in the absence of such a change, the Postal Service will be forced to apply for a rate increase later this year. S. 380 has broad support among the postal community and it deserves our passage today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank and pay tribute to David Lash, the outgoing Executive Director of Bet Tzedek, The House of Justice in Los Angeles. David has made tremendous contributions to this vital organization and has been an extraordinary Executive Director these past nine years. Bet Tzedek is a non-profit organization which offers free legal services to the poor, elderly, consumers, tenants, employees, veterans and disabled residents of Los Angeles County. It has become a true beacon of light for thousands of individuals whose rights may have been violated but who can not otherwise afford the assistance of an attorney. Under David's superb supervision, Bet Tzedek has served over 10,000 clients each year, and the results of his leadership and his commitment to justice are inspiring. Bet Tzedek worked with attorneys from the City of Los Angeles and a large law firm to sue a landlord reputed to be one of Los Angeles' worst slumlords. The suit settled last year with the landlord pledging to maintain safe living conditions at more than 20 properties. David has also maintained Bet Tzedek's role as a leader in helping Holocaust survivors and their heirs sue European insurance carriers for unpaid insurance claims dating back to World War II. In addition, Bet Tzedek has partnered with Public Counsel in creating a new kinship care legal program. This program facilitates the adoption of children by their grandparents when the parents are unable to provide care. David significantly strengthened Bet Tzedek by expanding its 54- person staff, increasing fundraising revenue by over 60 percent and helping Bet Tzedek reach a more diverse group of volunteers and staff. David introduced and expanded a number of innovative programs during his tenure, including the Caregiver Advocacy Project, the Nursing Home Advocacy Project and the Employment Rights Project. David has been a voice for the under-represented, the unrepresented and the unheard in Los Angeles. He has ably forged alliances within the public interest community and coordinated his efforts with talented staff at many of Los Angeles' large private law firms. Under his direction, thousands of individual rights have been restored and preserved. I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking David Lash for his remarkable contributions and distinguished record of accomplishments. Please also join in wishing him all the best in his new position at O'Melveny and Myers, where he will resume his career as a full-time litigator and serve as the firm's Managing Counsel for pro-bono activities for the State of California.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent, and I hope the gentleman on the other side will appreciate this since we were misinformed on the time, that we be given an additional 5 minutes on each side.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?