Henry Waxman

Mr. WAXMAN

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

Mr. WAXMAN. I must say how impressed I am by the gentleman's knowledge of the technical aspects of the fuel system, and I think the gentleman is absolutely right. If we were told that ethanol would help us achieve the clean air standards and is just as good as reformulated gasoline without it, that is one thing. But the gentleman pointed out correctly that if we use ethanol, we will have dirtier air. There is an exemption to this, however, in the wintertime in high altitudes areas. But we have another provision in the law that requires ethanol to be used under those circumstances. But for California and New York and New Jersey and other States around the country that say they do not want to use MTBE, we should not be required to bring in ethanol at higher prices and then dirtier air as a result.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, we have debated this at length. This is the bottom line: It is unfair to California to force us to import billions of gallons of ethanol that we do not want, that will raise our gasoline prices, that will balkanize our fuel supply, and will make our air dirtier. I urge all Members to support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox).

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge Members to oppose this amendment. The claim has been made that California's control over its own intrastate pipeline has meant less capacity for the natural gas being brought to California through the interstate pipeline from Texas. Well, California has had capacity that has not been used. Southern California Gas alone has four approved capacity expansions under construction. The problem is not California having the ability to move that natural gas through the pipeline. The problem in the El Paso Natural Gas case has been the claim that El Paso Natural Gas, using the interstate pipeline, manipulated the capacity on that pipeline so they could drive up the prices for natural gas in California. If we pass this amendment, they will be able to take away our ability to control the pipeline in our own State, and then be able to use one interstate pipeline to do what they did already to us with that interstate pipeline manipulation. When El Paso Natural Gas lost its stranglehold over the natural gas prices without any change in the capacity within California, natural gas prices dropped. That shows that it was manipulation by El Paso Natural Gas that kept those prices up. This has nothing to do with California's control over its own pipeline. Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to oppose this amendment. There is no need for it. It could do a great deal of harm. If it leaves us in the clutches of FERC, we may never ever get a hearing from them, and could lead us to a worse problem than we already have. I strongly urge Members to oppose the Green amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, what we would have liked to do is to offer an elimination from the law, the Federal law, that tells States they have to follow a specified formula for their gasoline to be reformulated in the most polluted areas. The existing law says they have to have an oxygenate requirement met. When the law was adopted in 1990, we thought that was the only way to get the environmental standards. But what we have learned is that to meet that requirement, the gasoline has to be either used with MTBE, which turns out to be a hazard for drinking water; or they have to use an oxygenate, a grain substitute, and that can be very expensive, it is not necessary, and we have also found out that it could keep the air dirtier. So what we would like to have done is just wipe out the oxygenate requirement and let the States decide the matter for themselves. Who needs Washington to decide these issues for us? If we are going to achieve the environmental standards, let the States make their own decision how they want their gasoline to be reformulated. But we were not allowed to offer an amendment that broadly. This applies only to California. For those who would like to have the same treatment for their States, vote with us, because the next thing we will have is an elimination from this requirement in the Northeast, where they do not want to have to use MTBE, and other places where they do not want Washington telling them how to make their reformulated gasoline. If we do not pass this amendment, we are going to have dirtier air; it is not necessary to put in the oxygenate. It is going to make the gasoline more expensive. It could lead to an interruption in supply because we are going to have to import ethanol to replace MTBE, and it balkanizes our fuel supply. So I urge support for the Cox amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I was taken aback by the comments of the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose) that this is anti-environment. Well, it is not anti- environment to put in cost-of-service charges, which is the way electricity had always been handled in California and most of the country where regulation is in place. He said it encourages inefficiency. The FERC order gives a bonus to the most inefficient, costly supplier of electricity, and everybody else rises to that price. They get a windfall. I think that what we need is to have cost-of-service rates, the cost of the service plus a profit, and not to give windfalls and not to give any encouragement to any supplier that if only they held back some supplies by shutting down temporarily on some phony argument that they could get a higher price. Because that is what we have seen in California as a result of a very bad law that was adopted unanimously by the legislature, signed by a Republican governor, passed by a Democratic legislature. It gave a green light to a manipulation of the market by energy suppliers. Not that they did anything illegal; they took advantage of the situation. I feel the FERC order gives a green light to further manipulation and gouging which could lead to blackouts if the weather changes in California and we find ourselves with a greater use of electricity and we bump up to more demand than supply. So I would urge support for this amendment. It is an insurance policy that we do not find ourselves in California and the whole West Coast with blackouts and further gouging, which is what we have seen as a result of a bad law once passed by the legislature in California.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. This year, there has been only one true energy crisis in the United States. That is the skyrocketing energy prices and blackouts in California and the West. Incredibly, however, this bill does nothing to address this issue. That is why I am offering this amendment. The goal of the amendment is to prevent a return to the blackouts and skyrocketing electricity prices that have plagued the West. Some people seem to think that FERC's complicated regulatory experiment has solved the energy crisis out West. After all, prices are lower, and there have not been major blackouts recently. I do not mean to sound like Cassandra, but the simple truth is that these conditions may not last. There are two main reasons that prices are lower: one, California has been experiencing unseasonably mild weather; and, secondly, California's successful conservation efforts have decreased energy consumption by more than 10 percent. The conservation efforts will continue, but the weather could turn much hotter at any time. If that happens, demand will soar. And if demand goes back up, the current FERC order will not protect California and the West. Just look what happened on July 2 and July 3 when demand reached 40,000 megawatts, the highest level this summer. When that happened, there were blackouts in Nevada, and there were almost blackouts in California. The FERC order did not help prevent the blackouts; it did just the opposite. It caused generators to withhold power. Not only does the FERC order make blackouts more likely, it does not effectively curb prices. I want to call to Members' attention an article from the Los Angeles Times which ran just last week. This article explains that despite the FERC order, power generators are continuing to charge excessive prices. Let me give you one example. As the Los Angeles Times reported, Reliant continues to submit bids for electricity for as much as $540 per megawatt hour, more than five times its estimated cost. The simple truth is that FERC's order is seriously flawed. First, it guarantees enormous windfall profits for generators by allowing the least efficient, most expensive generator to set the price for all generators. Secondly, the order encourages generators to withhold power in order to ensure that their least efficient generating units set the market price. This is exactly backwards, and it is a recipe for blackouts. My amendment is very simple. It says that FERC must impose cost-of- service-based rates for a short time until new power supplies can come online. Under this amendment, generators will be paid for their costs of production, and they will make a reasonable profit; but they will be barred from gouging the West. I urge support for this amendment.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Sawyer).

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), who has taken such a very strong leadership role on this.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. (Mr. BOUCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this CAFE amendment. It is urgently needed to restore some balance to this legislation. This is the most important conservation measure that we will have before us in the whole energy bill if this amendment is adopted. If this amendment is not adopted, I want Members to realize that the CAFE provisions in the bill itself are a mirage. The legislation claims to save 5 billion gallons of gasoline by 2010. This sounds like a lot of gasoline, but we are talking about a reduction of 5 billion gallons out of a pool of over 2.5 trillion gallons. So even if the provisions worked as advertised, the 5 billion-gallon reduction translates into only a cut of two-tenths of 1 percent. But, in fact, this bill will not even achieve these minuscule savings. The fine print of the bill contains CAFE loopholes that will allow fuel consumption to increase by 9 billion gallons. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record an analysis of the H.R. 4 provisions which will explain why we will even go backwards if H.R. 4 is adopted as it is written. It will allow under the Bush administration's analysis an increase of 9 million gallons. The loopholes make the CAFE provisions in this bill a step backward. Just this week, the National Academy of Sciences released a new study on CAFE that shows we can do much more. The Boehlert-Markey-Shays- Waxman amendment will make reasonable, commonsense improvements in the fuel efficiency standards of our light trucks. And it will close the loopholes in the current law and in the bill before us. I urge support of the amendment. Analysis of the H.R. 4 Provisions Which Amend the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Law On Wednesday, August 1, 2001, the House of Representatives is considering H.R. 4, the ``Securing America's Future Energy Act of 2001.'' This legislation contains an amendment offered by Rep. Richard Burr (R-NC) at Subcommittee which amends the federal law governing automobile fuel economy. This amendment was heralded by some as a significant increase in fuel economy standards applicable to sport utility vehicles (SUVs) and other light trucks. Upon analysis, this amendment appears to be seriously flawed. i. background Under current law, the Secretary of Transportation is directed to prescribe by regulation average fuel economy standards for light trucks 18 months prior to the beginning of each model year. Sec. 32902(a). The standard is set at the ``maximum feasible average fuel economy level'' that the Secretary decides the manufacturers can achieve in that model year. Id. In setting a standard, the Secretary is required to consider technological feasibility, economic practicability, the effect of other governmental motor vehicle standards on fuel economy, and the need of the United States to conserve energy. Sec. 32902(f). Under this approach, the maximum feasible average fuel economy standard is determined on an ongoing basis with new technology being recognized and considered in the development of standards each and every year. The current CAFE standard for light trucks is 20.7 miles per gallon. Since 1995, the Secretary of Transportation has not been permitted to revise this standard due to a congressional prohibition on such action passed each year in the appropriations process. ii. the improved fuel economy purported to be achieved by h.r. 4 is insignificant H.R. 4 purports to reduce the projected gasoline consumption of light trucks manufactured between 2004 and 2010 by 5 billion gallons in the years 2004 through 2010. As discussed below, the achievement of any improvement in fuel economy is in doubt under this language. However, assuming that a 5 billion gallon reduction in projected gasoline consumption is achieved, this reduction is insignificant. Under this legislation, light trucks manufactured between 2004 and 2010 must reduce consumption by 5 billion gallons over the years 2004 through 2010. During the period from 2004-2020, total consumption of petroleum is projected to be 2.27 trillion gallons of petroleum. Although 5 billion gallons sounds like a lot of gasoline, it amounts to a mere 0.22% reduction in projected petroleum use. The Union of Concerned Scientists has estimated that the fuel economy of light trucks would only need to be improved by one mile per gallon in model years 2004 through 2010 to achieve this goal. iii. h.r. 4 undermines current law Proponents of H.R. 4 have stated that the 5 billion gallon reduction in projected gasoline use is merely the floor for increased fuel economy and that the integrity of the CAFE law is preserved, allowing for any other appropriate improvements in fuel economy to be made. Upon analysis, it appears that H.R. 4 would actually encourage the consumption of more fuel than it conserves, while substantially altering the way the CAFE law functions and inhibiting further progress on fuel economy. A. H.R. 4 wastes more gasoline than it would purport to save by extending the flawed CAFE incentive for dual fueled vehicles for an additional four years Even as H.R. 4 purports to save five billion gallons of gasoline, it includes provisions that the Bush administration has estimated would increase gasoline consumption by nine billion gallons. H.R. 4 extends a flawed program which creates CAFE incentives for dual fueled vehicles. Under current law, the production of dual fueled automobiles earns significant CAFE credits. As a result, manufactures produce many of these vehicles. According to the New York Times, General Motors, Ford Motor and the Chrysler unit of DaimlerChrysler have made 1.2 million dual-fuel vehicles, almost all of which are designed to burn either ethanol or gasoline. These include most Chrysler minivans and some Chevrolet S-10 pickups, Ford Taurus sedans and Ford Windstar minivans. These vehicles differ from other vehicles only in that they contain a $200 sensor for burning ethanol, which their owners are often not even aware of. Dual fueled automobiles are manufactured to run on ethanol yet virtually no vehicles actually do so. In fact, only 101 of the 176,000 services stations in the United States sell nearly pure ethanol. Most of these service stations are in the Midwest. There is not a single one on the West Coast and there are only two on the East Coast--one in Virginia and one in South Carolina. These credits have allowed the automakers to reduce the average fuel economy of all vehicles they sell by five-tenths to nine-tenths of a mile per gallon. Under current law these credits are scheduled to sunset in 2004 unless the Administration extends the programs for an additional four years. H.R. 4 would statutorily extend the CAFE law until 2008, and allow for the credits to be extended until 2012. According to a draft report prepared by the Bush Administration, continuing the program from 2005 to 2008 will increase gasoline consumption by nine billion gallons. This is almost twice as much fuels as H.R. 4 purports to save. B. H.R. 4 fundamentally alters the standard-setting process for light trucks which may hinder incentives for advanced technology vehicles H.R. 4 substitutes the yearly approach under current law with an approach that will set standards from 2004 through 2010. This is a substantial weakening of current law. While no one can definitively predict what the ``maximum feasible average fuel economy level'' will be in the future, the ``maximum feasible'' level is clearly higher than the miniscule requirements of H.R. 4. C. H.R. 4 removes incentives for advanced weight reduction technologies and materials Automakers have been learning that safer, more fuel efficient vehicles can be manufactured using lighter weight materials, such as aluminum, or through advanced engineering approaches like unibody construction which can produce lighter and structurally sound frames. Under the current system, manufacturers have incentives to deploy these weight reduction technologies and materials, because all light duty trucks fall under a single CAFE standard. H.R. 4 promotes a weight-based system for establishing fuel economy standards for light trucks. This approach could eliminate the incentives for these advanced construction technologies and materials by assuming that the weight of light trucks cannot be reduced. D. H.R. 4 does not address passenger vehicles and requires no improvements in the fuel economy of diesel vehicles H.R. 4 does not direct any increase in the CAFE standards for passenger cars which make up about half of the new vehicles sold in the United States. Similarly, H.R. 4 sets no targets for reducing the consumption of diesel fuel. The auto manufacturing industry has indicated that they intend to expand the use of diesel engines in the coming years. In fact, as discussed below H.R. 4 gives manufacturers additional incentives to increase diesel use as a means of meeting their obligations under H.R. 4. E. H.R. 4 creates incentives for greater reliance on diesel vehicles H.R. 4 sets a goal for avoided gasoline consumption for light trucks manufactured between 2004 and 2010. The way H.R. 4 is drafted this goal can be achieved by producing more diesel-powered light trucks and fewer gasoline-powered light trucks. Automakers could comply with the letter of the law by merely increasing the portion of light trucks that are diesel-powered.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Greenwood substitute and in opposition to H.R. 2505. This debate involves research that holds a great deal of promise for defeating disease and repairing damaged organs. It also involves a great deal of confusion. In order to tilt the debate about genetic cell replication research, some opponents lump it with Dolly the sheep. No one supports reproductive cloning and no one benefits from such confusion, except those who hope to spur an overreaction. The Greenwood substitute would prohibit reproductive cloning without shutting down valuable research. Some argue to prohibit genetic cell replication research because it might, in the wrong hands, be turned into reproductive cloning research. I cannot support this argument. All research can be misused. That is why we regulate research, investigate abuse of subjects, and prosecute scientific fraud and misconduct. If researchers give drug overdoses in clinical trials, the law requires that they be disbarred and punished. If someone were to traffic in organs, the law requires they be prosecuted, and if someone were to develop reproductive cloning under the Greenwood substitute, they would be prosecuted for a felony. The Greenwood ban on reproductive cloning will be every bit as effective as the Weldon ban on all research. If someone is deterred by one felony penalty, they will be deterred by the other. Finally, let me point out that the Greenwood substitute cleans up two major drafting mistakes in the Weldon bill, mistakes that, in and of themselves, should be enough to make Members oppose the Weldon bill. First, as the dissenting views in the committee report note, this bill criminalizes some forms of infertility treatments. These are not the science fiction clones that people have been talking about today; this is a woman and a man who want to have a child using her egg and his sperm and some other genetic materials to make up for flaws in one or the other; and this bill would make this couple and their doctors felons. That is wrong. They do not want Dolly the sheep, they want a child of their own. Second, the Weldon bill makes criminal all products that are derived from this research. This means that if an advance in research leads to a new protein or enzyme or chemical, that protein or enzyme or chemical cannot be brought into this country, even if it requires no creation of new fertilized eggs and is the cure for dreaded diseases. That is wrong. It is an overreaction and does not serve any useful end. I urge my colleagues to support the Greenwood amendment. We should clearly define what is wrongdoing, prohibit it, and enforce that prohibition, but we should not shut down beneficial work, clinical trials, organ transplants, or genetic cell replication because of a risk of wrongdoing; and we should not ban some things by the accident of bad drafting. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Greenwood substitute and in opposition to H.R. 2505. This debate involves research that holds a great deal of promise for defeating disease and repairing damaged organs. It also involves a great deal of confusion. Let me try to clear up that confusion by clarifying what we mean by ``cloning research,'' because the term means different things to different people. Some ``cloning'' research involves, for example, using genetic material to generate one adult skin cell from another adult skin cell. I know of no serious opposition to such research. Some ``cloning'' research starts with a human egg cell, inserts a donor's complete genetic material into its core, and allows this cell to multiply to produce new cells, genetically identical to the donor's cells. This is genetic cell replication. These cells can, in theory, be transplanted to be used for organ repair or tissue regeneration-- without risk of allergic reaction or rejection. H.R. 2505 would ban that--for no good reason. Some ``cloning'' research is for reproduction. It starts with the human egg and donated genetic material, but it is intended to go further, in an effort to create what is essentially a human version of Dolly the sheep, a full-scale living replica of the donor of the genetic material. I know of no serious support for such research and the Greenwood amendment would ban that. In order to tilt the debate about genetic cell replication research, some opponents lump it with Dolly the sheep. No one supports reproductive cloning, and no one benefits from such confusion except those who hope to spur an overreaction. The Greenwood amendment would prohibit reproductive cloning without shutting down valuable research. Some also argue to prohibit genetic cell replication research because it might--in the wrong hands--be turned into reproductive cloning research. I cannot support this argument. Such a prohibition is no more reasonable than to prohibit all clinical trials because researchers might give overdoses deliberately. It is as much overreaching as prohibiting all organ transplant studies because an unscrupulous person might buy or sell organs for profit. All research can be misused. That's why we regulate research, investigate abuse of subjects, and prosecute scientific fraud and misconduct. If researchers give drug overdoses in clinical trials, the law requires that they be disbarred and punished. If someone were to traffick in organs, the law requires that they be prosecuted. And if someone were to develop reproductive cloning, under the Greenwood amendment, they could be prosecuted for a felony. And the Greenwood ban will be every bit as effective as the Weldon ban on all research. If someone is deterred by one felony penalty, they will be deterred by the other Finally, let me point out that the Greenwood amendment cleans up two major drafting mistakes in the Weldon bill--mistakes that in and of themselves should be enough to make Members oppose the Weldon bill. First, as the dissenting views in the Committee Report note, this bill criminalizes some forms of infertility treatments. These are not the science fiction clones that people have been talking about today; this is a woman and a man who want to have a child--using her egg and his sperm and some other genetic materials to make up for flaws in one or the other. And this bill would make this couple and their doctor felons. That's wrong. They only want a healthy child of their own--but the Weldon bill would stop that. Second, the Weldon bill makes criminal all products that are derived from this research. this means that if an advance in research elsewhere leads to a new protein or enzyme or chemical, that protein or enzyme or chemical cannot be brought into the country--even if it requires no creation of new fertilized eggs and is the cure for dreaded diseases. That's wrong. It is an over-reaction that does not serve any useful end. I urge my colleagues to support the Greenwood amendment. We should clearly define what we believe is wrongdoing, prohibit it, and enforce that prohibition. The Greenwood amendment does that. But we should not shut down beneficial work--clinical trials, organ transplants, or genetic cell replication--because of a risk of wrongdoing, and we should not ban some things by the accident of bad drafting. The Congress should not prohibit potentially life-saving research on genetic cell replication because it accords a cell--a special cell, but only a cell--the same rights and protections as a person. No one supports creating a cloned human being, but we should allow research on how cells work to continue.

Mr. WAXMAN

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

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

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This is a noncontroversial amendment clarifying that an April 2001 report entitled ``The Plan for the Development of a 25-Year General Use Plan'' for the VA West Los Angeles Health Care Center is a preliminary plan in the development of a master plan for the lands on that property. There is concern about the status of this preliminary plan because it contains some controversial provisions strongly opposed by the local residents, community groups, and public officials. This might have been avoided, but no local, county, and State officials, and only a very small number of community organizations in the area were allowed to participate in the process to develop this plan. The West L.A. VA also opposes parts of the plan. The VA will make its decisions for the future use of the West L.A. VA lands under the existing CARES (Capital Assessment Realignment for Enhanced Services) process that was initiated in 1999. Under this process, the VA will conduct a detailed analysis of VA property throughout the country to determine the best option for serving veterans in each area. This amendment would bar the use of Federal funds to implement any of the April 2001 plan's provisions. Its intent is simply to clarify that it is only a preliminary report and that this final plan for use of the land will be developed under the CARES process. Mr. Chairman, there is nothing controversial about this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Nursing Home Quality Protection Act. It is imperative that we do everything in our power to protect our most vulnerable citizens--the elderly and disabled who live in nursing homes. That is why I and my colleagues are introducing this legislation today-- to take a crucial first step towards ensuring that seniors in nursing homes are provided the care they deserve. This legislation is a product of a series of investigations reports conducted by my staff into nursing home conditions. These reports have consistently found numerous violations of federal health and safety standards in nursing homes throughout the country. Many of the violations harmed residents. Common problems included untreated bedsores; inadequate medical care; malnutrition; dehydration; preventable accidents; and inadequate sanitation and hygiene. Moreover, during the course of these investigations, we began to notice an unexpected and extremely disturbing trend. Many of the nursing homes we examined were being cited for physical, sexual, or verbal abuse of residents. I asked my staff to investigate whether these abuse cases were isolated occurrences--or whether they signaled a broader, nationwide problem. The report I released today presented the results of this investigation. What we found was shocking. Within the last two years, nearly one- third of the nursing homes in the United States have been cited by state inspectors for an abuse violation. In over 1,600 nursing homes-- approximately one out of every ten--these abuse violations were serious enough to cause actual harm to residents or to place them in immediate jeopardy of death or serious injury. As documented in the report, we found examples of residents being punched, choked, or kicked by staff members or other residents. These attacks frequently caused serious injuries such as fractured bones and lacerations. And we found other examples of residents being groped or sexually molested. We also found that the percentage of nursing homes cited for abuse violations has doubled since 1996. I hope that this is the result of better detection and enforcement. To its credit, the Clinton Administration launched an initiative in 1998 to reduce abuse in nursing homes, and this initiative may be responsible for some of the increase in reported cases of abuse. But I am concerned that some of the increase in abuse cases may reflect an actual increase in abuse of residents. In 1997, Congress unwisely decided to repeal the Boren Amendment, which guaranteed that nursing homes receive adequate funding. Since then, federal funding has not kept pace with the costs of providing nursing care. As a result, it is harder and harder for nursing home operators to provide seniors the kind of care they need and deserve. I know many operators of nursing homes who are dedicated to providing the best care possible. They would never knowingly tolerate abuse or other dangerous practices in their facilities. But unless we are willing to pay nursing homes enough to do their job, intolerable incidents of abuse and other types of mistreatment will continue to persist in too many nursing homes. I do not want to suggest that most residents of nursing homes are being abused. The vast majority of nursing staff are dedicated and professional people who provide good care. In many instances, the only reason that abuse is even reported is because of the actions of conscientious staff members. On a personal note, my mother-in-law is in a nursing home in Maryland. I've met with many of the people that care for her. They are good people, but they have difficult jobs. They work long hours in understaffed conditions, and they don't make a lot of money. Under such trying circumstances, it's not surprising that staff turnover is high and that facilities are forced to hire people who shouldn't be working in nursing homes. But the bottom line is clear: Something clearly needs to be done to improve nursing home conditions. The senior citizens who live in nursing homes are frail and vulnerable. Frequently, they are defenseless and cannot even report problems to others. They deserve to be treated with respect and dignity--not to live in fear of abuse and mistreatment. It would have been intolerable if we had found a hundred cases of abuse; it is unconscionable that we have found thousands upon thousands. That's why I and many other members are introducing the Nursing Home Quality Protection Act later today. Our bill is a comprehensive approach to improving conditions in our nation's nursing homes. The bill would: Increase resources to nursing homes so they can hire more staff; Institute minimum nurse staffing requirements; Impose tougher sanctions on poorly performing nursing homes; Require criminal background checks on employees; and Increase Internet disclosure of nursing home conditions. This is a good piece of legislation that has been endorsed by organizations representing nursing home residents and workers. It will do much to improve the quality of care received by the one and a half million people who live in our country's nursing homes. I want to assure all Americans who have a family member in a nursing home that we will do all we can to protect their aging loved ones. They helped our generation when we needed their help. And now it's our turn--and our obligation--to make sure they can live safely and without fear.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 212. The upcoming U.N. World Conference Against Racism is an important opportunity to condemn discrimination in all forms and dispel the hatred and misunderstanding that promotes it. By holding it in Durban, South Africa, it is supposed to be a celebration of the world's triumph over apartheid, and a call to action against the ongoing injustice of slavery, genocide, religious oppression, gender discrimination, and other forms of intolerance that continue to plague our world. That is why I am deeply concerned that Arab countries have tried to overshadow these objectives by hijacking the conference to bash Israel. Language inserted in the draft declarations revives hateful anti-Jewish lies that Zionism is racism and that Israel practices ethnic cleansing and apartheid. This targeted attack on Israel is another blatant attempt by the enemies of peace to undermine the peace process and make political dialogue between Israelis and Palestinians impossible. If it succeeds in poisoning the U.N. conference declarations, it will inevitably become a new platform for Palestinian incitement against Israel and fuel the cycle of terrorist attacks and violence. This resolution underscores U.S. support for the underlying goals and objectives of the U.N. World Conference. I am hopeful, therefore, that the Bush administration will be successful in the final preconference meeting in Geneva this week in bringing the conference agenda back on track. Otherwise its domination by extremist anti-Israeli bias will be harmful to Israel, its allies, and the purpose of the U.N. Conference itself, and will earn the condemnation of those who believe in an end to racism and bigotry.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman for this amendment and rise in support of it. President Bush has proposed cutting EPA's enforcement budget by $25 million and giving these funds to the States. I do not oppose giving the States money for enhanced enforcement of environmental laws, however, our laws cannot be adequately enforced if EPA's budget is slashed. This amendment restores critically needed funding for enforcement of our environmental laws. I urge all my colleagues to support this. If we have these cuts we are talking about 2,000 fewer inspections, a 20 percent reduction in civil actions, an 11 percent reduction in criminal actions. There are many environmental programs that the States are simply not in a position to enforce. For example, States cannot ensure that pollution from one State does not affect neighboring States. This is a job only the Federal Government can do. So I support the gentleman's amendment. I commend him for his leadership. I urge all my colleagues to vote for it.