Henry Waxman

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I rise to urge a yes vote on this effort to get arsenic out of our drinking water. It seems to me there could be two reasons for opposing this amendment. If one thinks arsenic in drinking water is a good thing, that would be a legitimate reason to vote against this effort. But I have not heard anyone make that argument. If there is one thing we all seem to agree on is that we do not want arsenic in our drinking water. It is an extremely potent human carcinogen and it causes lung, bladder, and skin cancer and is linked to liver and kidney cancer. It is this simple: arsenic is a killer. The second argument one could make against this amendment is that we need more science and that we are rushing a decision. One could make that argument, but the record shows this is not true. Let me relate the brief history of this problem. For over 50 years, we had a woefully outdated drinking water standard for arsenic. Then in 1996, the House voted unanimously to require EPA to update the arsenic standard for drinking water. We required that EPA act by 2001. Finally in January, 2001 EPA set a new standard for arsenic at 10 parts per billion. Public health and environmental groups thought the standards should be lower. States suggested lower standards as well. Even Christie Todd Whitman had supported the standard at half this level when she was Governor of New Jersey. But EPA decided to stick to 10 parts per billion because the science supported it and it was a commonsense number. This was the same standard adopted by the World Health Organization and the European Union. This amendment is based on good science and a comprehensive record and it accomplishes a comminutions goal. It reduces the amount of arsenic in our drinking water. In addition, we know that no major water company trade association has challenged the rule. In fact, the California/Nevada section of the American Water Works Association has written in strong support of the new arsenic standard. We can have safe water at a reasonable cost all across the country. I think it is our obligation as a Congress to do that. That is what this amendment will do. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Bonior-Waxman- Obey-Brown-Kildee amendment.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.

Mr. WAXMAN. I thank the gentleman very much for those assurances. I understand the chairman of the subcommittee also expressing the view that this is a placeholder. The original proposal I found very troublesome. It would do things like allow all the money from the National Security Council to be used for the residence of the Vice President. I do not think that much power ought to be delegated away from the Congress to the executive branch. There are many accounts over which we ought to have a much closer opportunity to review. I thank the gentleman for his assurances and will look forward to discussing the issue with him further.

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

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. I thank the gentleman very much for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, it is important to have the background check system function efficiently, and to do that we need to preserve records so that law enforcement officials can investigate corrupt dealers who traffic guns illegally and sell firearms off the books. It also assists authorities to track down straw purchasers who buy guns illegally for felons, fugitives, children and others. Preserving these records also helps in the fight against criminals who buy guns with fake IDs. The General Accounting Office went undercover in five States and they demonstrated how easy it is to use fake IDs to obtain firearms. The conclusion was that although there are few ways to detect fake IDs, one option is for police to monitor criminal background check records. The Attorney General now wants to eliminate even this limited but valuable tool. The Attorney General's proposal I think is a horrible mistake for public safety. It will seriously jeopardize legitimate law enforcement activities. It does not make law enforcement easier. It does not help cops on the street. It does not increase deterrence. And it does not provide police any additional resources in their fight. It seems to be nothing more than an outright gift to the gun lobby. That is why I support the Moran-McCarthy-Waxman amendment to this bill. I think it is an important one if we are going to have the integrity preserved of the original Brady Act.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Look, when we adopted the law, we wanted to balance generic drugs, brand-name drugs; and if a generic went in to FDA, FDA is supposed to evaluate whether they are violating a patent. But some of these patents are frivolous patents, and all the Brown amendment seeks to do is to give FDA more funds so that they can figure out how to find out whether a patent is frivolous or real. Why should consumers have to pay higher prices for drugs and not allow competition with a generic availability because of a frivolous patent? So I strongly support this amendment, and I urge all Members to support this very well-though-out, clear, and helpful, constructive amendment.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Gutknecht amendment. I am opposed to it because the amendment is so vaguely drafted it can be interpreted as either ineffective or dangerous, but under no reading is it worth doing. I strongly agree with all of those who have argued that pharmaceutical prices are too high, and that drug companies discriminate against U.S. citizens in their pricing policies. I would urge the Committee on Commerce to take up legislation to right this wrong, but the Gutknecht amendment does not fix the problem. My reading of the amendment is that a drug must be FDA approved to be allowed to be imported under this amendment. Since under the law a drug cannot be FDA approved unless it is accompanied by appropriate labeling and since virtually no foreign drug will have this labeling, I believe that few, if any, drugs will be allowed to be imported under this amendment. There is a different reading of the amendment that it would allow importation if the basic chemical substance has been approved by the FDA. If this is the case, the amendment is dangerous because it would allow drugs to be brought in without allowing FDA to ensure that they are not adulterated not misbranded and are indeed the right dosages and strengths. Moreover, all the consumer labeling that we have worked so hard to assure will be missing. Under this reading, once FDA approves a drug in theory it may not ensure that it is safe and effective in practice. So that is the choice. Is the amendment ineffective or bad? Either way, I oppose it and urge all of my colleagues to join me in asking that the House investigate the high cost of prescription drugs and the price discrimination that is practiced against Americans. This amendment, while many see good in it, I see no redeeming value in it because it will either be ineffective or dangerous, and I urge opposition to it.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to join others from our California delegation in paying tribute to the memory of Justice Stanley Mosk; to salute his career and the legacy that he has left for the people of California and for the people of this country. Justice Mosk was in public service for 60 years. He was a trial judge on the Superior Court of Los Angeles. He served as the Attorney General for the State of California. He was the longest serving member in the State Supreme Court's 151 year history. He served on the court for 37 years under five chief justices until his death at the age of 88 on June 19. During that period of time, he wrote almost 1,700 opinions, including landmark rulings that established new precedents in civil and criminal law. I also want to speak not just to the accomplishments and positions that Justice Mosk held, but to the fact that in this country we now take for granted that people from different racial and ethnic groups serve in public office. It is not surprising to people any longer to see people of different ancestry being out front as public officials. Last year, when Senator Joe Lieberman ran on the national ticket for vice president, it was a first, but it really brought about no particular reaction in the country one way or the other. He was judged as an individual on his candidacy, on his program, and on his service. Well, when Stanley Mosk ran for office as the first American Jew running for statewide office in California, people were very nervous about his candidacy. In those days, American Jews were very active in politics, they were active in public service, but there was an enormous hesitancy to run for public office, to be out front in public office and to be in a visible position. When Justice Mosk ran for Attorney General, there was a lot of concern and trepidation about his candidacy, but he was elected with the largest majority of any of the candidates in that year. Those of us who are Jewish and from California looked at his career and his accomplishments with an enormous sense of pride because he lived up to the highest standards of anybody in public office. He was a forerunner for people of Jewish background and religion to be in public office, and now it is not unusual at all. When I ran, over 25 years ago, for the House of Representatives, even as of that recent time, I was the first Jewish American to be elected ever in Southern California, and the first one in the State of California in 40 years. I think that the fact that we have American Jews in districts with large Jewish populations and States with no Jewish populations to speak of is a tribute to America. But it is also because of the role that a man like Stanley Mosk played because when he took the positions that he took as a judge, as the Attorney General, as a justice of the State Supreme Court, he remembered that he was a forerunner for other Jews and he remembered also that other Americans of various minority backgrounds were going to be faced with hurdles and his knowledge of that fact led him to be a champion of civil rights and individual liberties. I will not reiterate all the accomplishments, the policies that he set out. Some of my colleagues have done so in their remarks today. But I do want to note for everyone that Justice Mosk stands as a giant in the judicial field and as a great public servant for the State of California in every capacity in which he held that position. He was a mentor to a whole generation of Jewish activists, and he will be well remembered and sorely missed.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, today the Los Angeles City Council Chamber will be dedicated in the name of John Ferraro, a highly respected and beloved City Council member who died on April 17, 2001. John made a name for himself long before he joined the City Council in 1966. The youngest of eight children, he won an athletic scholarship to the University of Southern California where he played football for the USC Trojans. He was an all-American tackle and played in Rose Bowl games in 1944, 1945, and 1947. He was named to the National Football Foundation Hall of Fame in 1974, the USC Hall of Fame in 1995, and the Rose Bowl Hall of Fame in 1996. More recently, he was named to the Best College Football Team of the Century by the Los Angeles Times. After earning a Bachelor of Science Degree in Business Administration, John established a successful insurance brokerage firm in Los Angeles and became active in Democratic politics. In 1966 he was appointed to serve on the Los Angeles City Council after Council member Harold Henry died. He subsequently won nine elections and was serving his thirty-fifth year when he passed away. He served as City Council President longer than anyone in Los Angeles history. John's political skills were sharply honed and he made important contributions to the City of Los Angeles, including his crucial role in bringing improvements of the Los Angeles Zoo and drawing the 1984 Olympics and the Democratic National Convention 2000 to Los Angeles. In addition to serving on the City Council, John served as President of the League of California Cities and Independent Cities Association, and he served on the boards of the National League of Cities, the Museum of Contemporary Art, the Autry Museum of Western Heritage and the Hollywood-Wilshire YMCA. John's dedication to public service brought him numerous awards, including the Central City Association's 2000 Heart of the City Award, the L.A. Headquarters Association 2000 Enduring Spirit of Los Angeles Award, the USC General Alumni Association's Asa V. Call Achievement Award, the Los Angeles Marathon's 1996 Citizen of the Year Award, the All City Employees Benefits Service Association 1995 Employee of the Year, and the GTE State Forum Award for Community Service. John's loss has been felt deeply by the residents of Los Angeles and the Council members who were fortunate to serve with him. He never grandstanded. He didn't expect credit for his accomplishments. He worked quietly and effectively to achieve his goals. He was very simply a decent man and skilled advocate for the people of Los Angeles. The Dedication of the Council Chamber will help keep his memory and the generous contributions he made alive as a model for the future.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, it is time to award another Golden Jackpot. Today we have two outstanding nominees. The first nominee is the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, which is insisting on giving its senior executives over $65 million in bonuses at the same time the utility is filing for bankruptcy. That is a pretty good reward for a management team that both helped create the California energy crisis and drove the company into bankruptcy. Our second nominee is President Bush. President Bush has been faced with a choice on gasoline for California. By granting a waiver which was requested on a bipartisan basis by the delegation, the State requested a waiver on oxygenate requirements in gasoline and the President could have lowered gasoline prices, increased gasoline supplies and ensured that gasoline would cause less air pollution. Instead, urged on by Archer Daniels Midland and other special interests, the President rejected the waiver. So now California families may face a second energy crisis. We may have gasoline shortages, gasoline prices will go up, and we will not cut air pollution. This was a difficult decision, but this Golden Jackpot award is going to be presented to President Bush.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, a few months ago, I entered into the Congressional Record letters from individuals or their representatives who took issue with assertions made in the report released last fall by the House Government Reform Committee majority regarding the Department of Justice. Since then, yet another individual has written to complain of inaccuracies and unfairness in the majority's report. In the interest of a complete record on this matter, I submit into the Record this March 30, 2001, letter from Melvin Honowitz. Honowitz & Shaw, Attorneys at Law, One Maritime Plaza, Suite 1725, San Francisco, CA, March 30, 2001. Re: Palladino & Sutherland, and Jack Palladino. The Honorable Dan Burton, Committee on Government Reform, Washington, DC. The Honorable Henry A. Waxman, 2204 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Messrs. Burton and Waxman: This office represents Palladino & Sutherland and Jack Palladino, nationally known private investigators [hereafter the ``client'']. We write without waiver of any applicable privilege to address the false allegations, accusations, assumptions, innuendos, speculations and references to our client contained in Chapter 10 of the Committee's report entitled ``Janet Reno's Stewardship of the Justice Department: A Failure To Serve The Ends of Justice.'' The report's allegations as to Jack Palladino are premised on the false assumption that Mr. Palladino, or someone under his direction or control, had a ``source in the Bureau of Prisons,'' and that his ``source'' obtained NCIC information on Nabuo Abe. The Committee's assumption is false and defamatory. Moreover, the record on which the Committee relies is void of evidence in support of this assumption. Page 157, Section 1.a. of the reports is entitled ``Soka Gakkai Illegally Obtained Information on Nabuo Abe Through Jack Palladino.'' Except for this defamatory heading, the report utterly fails to present evidence to support the accusation. In fact, the only references to Jack Palladino in this Section states, without supporting documentation, ``Palladino then apparently contacted a source in the Bureau of Prisons who had access to the NCIC data base.'' [emphasis added] This is untrue and never happened. The report then goes on to make the untrue and unsubstantiated statement that ``the source at the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) broke the law, as did possibly Langberg and Palladino.'' [emphasis added] In a manner more reminiscent of Kafka or perhaps Alice's Adventures In Wonderland, the report makes allegations of criminal acts which, prior to publication, the Committee never gave our clients an opportunity to refute. Accordingly, one must not only question the lack of due process afforded our client, but the underlying bias of the report's findings and the Committee's investigation. Then, in Section 1.b, the report gratuitously speculates as to why attorney Rebekah Poston may have sought NCIC records: ``perhaps they were concerned with the reliability of Mr. Palladino's work . . .'' In fact, in advancing this speculation the Committee ignores its own Exhibit 62 to the report which identifies where Ms. Poston obtained here alleged NCIC information, and makes no reference to Jack Palladino or Palladino & Sutherland or anyone under their direction and control. Even a cursory review of the Committee's Report and attached Exhibits demonstrates a complete lack of evidence. The only mention of Mr. Palladino in the Exhibits supporting the report is contained in unfounded and false speculation and innuendo that Mr. Palladino (for reasons never made clear) might have ``set up'' Poston and Manuel in some undefined manner (Exhibit 97). Similar raw speculation appears in Exhibits 98 and 104 and is false. In his letter of October 31, 2000 to the Committee, attorney Barry B. Langberg clearly states the truth: ``Simply put, there is no evidence that Soka Gakkai, Jack Palladino or I committed any crime, or engaged in any improper activity whatsoever. As the report acknowledges the staff failed even to interview Mr. Palladino or me about our role in this matter. These charges are particularly objectionable because they are not even relevant to the report's central thesis, that Ms. Poston and others working at her direction received favorable treatment at the hand of the Justice Department. Thus, these serious attacks are made almost casually, without any claim or relevance to any public purpose. In fact, even a preliminary investigation would have revealed that the so-called ``reliable source,'' Richard Lucas, never met with Mr. Palladino or discussed with him any of the facts or issues concerning this matter. Further, an investigation would also have shown that I had no personal involvement with the activity criticized in the report.'' Mr. Langberg goes on to rebut and refute the allegations, including the speculation that something was planted in or deleted from the NCIC records. A copy of the entire Langberg letter is attached and incorporated by reference as Exhibit A, as are the four Committee exhibits referenced in this letter (Exhibits 62, 97, 98 and 104) attached as Exhibits B. Be clear, my client did not access nor seek or direct anyone to access the NCIC data base. Accordingly, we request that this letter and Mr. Langberg's letter be read into the Congressional Record and that the report be corrected. Sincerely, Melvin D. Honowitz, Honowitz & Shaw.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I join Representative Slaughter and Representative Schakowsky today in offering an important amendment to the State Department Authorization Bill, which will enhance U.S. Government oversight of the major Holocaust restitution settlement that created the German Foundation ``Rememberance, Responsibility, and the Future.'' Nearly a year ago, on July 17, 2000, the German Foundation was established to expedite payments to Holocaust survivors who were tortured as slave and forced laborers, and settle claims for banking and insurance policies stolen by the Nazis. Unfortunately, its implementation has fallen far below expectations. Thousands of aging survivors who suffered through the horrors of concentration camps continue waiting for the distribution of payments months after all of the class action slave and forced labor cases were dismissed or withdrawn from U.S. courts. In the matter of insurance, merely 496 claims out of the 70,000 filed with the International Commission on Holocaust Era Insurance Claims (ICHEIC) have been settled. The rest have been idled or rejected because the companies have largely ignored many of ICHEIC's standards for approving claims and publishing policyholder names. During the ceremony preceding the announcement of the German Foundation, U.S. Holocaust Envoy Stuart Eizenstat said, ``It is critically important that all German insurance companies cooperate with the process established by the International Commission on Holocaust Era Insurance Claims, or ICHEIC. This includes publishing lists of unpaid insurance policies and subjecting themselves to audit. Unless German insurance companies make these lists available through ICHEIC, potential claimants cannot know their eligibility, and the insurance companies will have failed to assume their moral responsibility.'' We must vigilantly pursue resolution of these issues. The amendment asks the State Department for a status report on the progress of the German Foundation, including verification that all participating insurance companies abide by the same baseline set of claims handling procedures and standards for publishing policyholder names. It is troubling enough that barely half of the modest DM 10 billion designated for the German Foundation has been contributed, but no amount of money is worthwhile unless survivors have meaningful access to the funds. Congress played a vital role in fostering and facilitating the creation of the German Foundation, and we must be equally devoted to overseeing its proper implementation. We should continue holding congressional hearings on this issue, and briefings to help Members of Congress assist constituents in filing claims as deadlines rapidly approach. The deadline to qualify for slave and forced labor payments is August 11, 2001, and the deadline to file for insurance claims is January 31, 2002. We must do as much as possible to make sure that the German Foundation offers not just an ``exclusive remedy,'' but the fair and just process that was envisioned. Mr. SCHROCK, Chairman, I rise today in support of Mr. Manzullo's Amendment and in support for a constituent in Virginia's 2nd district who will be directly affected by this amendment. Ms. Chantal Ganthier was the wife of one of the service men taken hostage on the hijacked TWA flight 847 in 1985. I support Ms. Ganthier becoming eligible for compensation due to the traumatic suffering she and her family has endured since her husband was brutally taken as a hostage in 1985. I encourage my colleagues to vote yea for the Manzullo amendment. It's time was recognize the legal right of these families, these victims of a terrible hijacking, to become eligible for compensation.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to John R. Garrison, Chief Executive Officer of the American Lung Association. This July, Mr. Garrison is retiring after eleven years of leading the American Lung Association, this nation's oldest voluntary health agency. Over the last two decades, Mr. Garrison's work has made a vital contribution to public health and a significant difference in shaping national policy. Millions of Americans live in a safer, cleaner, and healthier world because of his work. He has been a national leader in the battle against the tobacco industry, the efforts to eliminate tuberculosis, the quest to curb asthma, and the continuing fight for cleaner air. Throughout his career, Mr. Garrison has been in the vanguard of public health efforts. When the tobacco industry proposed a weak tobacco settlement with state attorneys general in 1997, Mr. Garrison was the first leader of a major health organization to step forward and oppose giving the tobacco industry immunity. Mr. Garrison also served on a tobacco advisory commission chaired by former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop and former FDA Commissioner David Kessler, playing a pivotal role in crafting the commission's final report, which remains a visionary blueprint of the policy changes needed to protect the public health from tobacco. Under Mr. Garrison's leadership, the American Lung Association led the recent battle for tougher ozone and particulate matter standards under the Clean Air Act. In addition, he expanded the American Lung Association's commitment to lung disease research. These efforts led to the development of the Asthma Clinical Research Center program, a nationwide network of 19 clinical research centers designed to conduct a broad range of clinical studies on asthma. From building a formal alliance with the Canadian Lung Association to assuming a leadership role in the International Union Against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease, Mr. Garrison has worked tirelessly to reduce the impact of lung disease around the world. This work continues with the American Lung Association's advocacy for a strong, enforceable global tobacco control treaty, the World Health Organization's Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. From asthma to air pollution, from tobacco control to the elimination of tuberculosis, Mr. Garrison has been a leader. Millions of people around the globe breathe easier because of his efforts. It is my distinct pleasure to ask my colleagues to join me in saluting John Garrison for his outstanding achievements and thank him for his service to the American Lung Association and the nation in fighting lung disease and promoting lung health.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to an extraordinary and accomplished man, Dr. Norm Levin, and to congratulate him on his receipt of the prestigious 2001 Distinguished Service Award (DSA) from the California Society of Anesthesiologists (CSA). I am proud to have known Norm for more than twenty years, having met with him countless times on issues affecting the medical profession and anesthesiologists. He always brings a well-balanced and thoroughly informed perspective to questions of policy, and he has the ability to see both sides of any given issue. I cannot imagine a more deserving recipient of the DSA. Norm began his affiliation with the CSA in the 1970's and has been a powerful force within the organization for more than two decades. He has distinguished himself in so many ways, but his real strength has been in working with the state and federal governments to bring an understanding of important issues facing the CSA. Norm has held nearly every office in the CSA, including Secretary, President-elect and finally President. He has chaired nine different CSA committees and served on more than thirty. Since 1989, Norm has been a member of the ASA Economics Committee, advocating on behalf of his colleagues. Like Norm, the DSA is truly unique. It is one of few awards that are given only when a worthy nominee is identified. In fact, in ten of the years since 1976 the award has not been given. I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Norm Levin for his tremendous contributions and to wish him continued success.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 91. Over the past few years there has been increasing interest in autism. How prevalent is it? What causes it? How do you treat it? Can we prevent it? During Congressional hearings, we have heard heart-wrenching stories from parents about the shock of hearing the diagnosis of autism, about the battles to find appropriate schooling, and about the desperate search for treatments and cures. One father told us that he has to drive 12 hours every month to take his son to treatment. The testimony of these parents have provided us with crucial information necessary for a better understanding of the impacts of this disease and what our research priorities should be. We have also heard the testimony of some clinicians who are reporting increasing diagnoses of autistic children in their clinics. CDC researchers have told us that they do not have good data on the number of cases of autism, whether the number is going up and, if it is, by how much. It is important to determine how pervasive this disease is and whether the rates are, in fact, increasing. Many researchers have suggested that environmental factors may contribute to autism. Understanding if there is an increase in incidence and when that increase began may give us some clues to what environmental factors could be to blame. Researchers have also testified at our hearings that much about the causes of autism remains unknown and that treatment options are limited. And we know that there is no known cure for this disease. We have heard some positive things as well. Recently, several genes associated with autism have been identified. Last week, researchers from NIH, the March of Dimes, and the MIND Institute at the University of California, Davis, announced that they may have found a biological marker for autism that would allow for the identification of autism earlier in life, before the onset of symptoms. This could lead to better diagnoses of autism, earlier interventions, which are critical for a more successful outcome, and perhaps the discovery of therapies for the disorders. Despite these recent advances, answers are not coming quickly enough for the parents of autistic children who live with these conditions every day, many of whom have tried every available treatment and intervention and who are running out of options. It is our obligation to these parents and to their children that we do everything we can to ensure that the best possible research is conducted quickly and thoroughly by appropriating the money authorized under the Children's Health Act and through other authorities of the NIH. In the meantime, while we wait for answers, we need to help parents of these children get the free and appropriate education to which their children are entitled by fully funding the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Many questions about autism remain unanswered. What we do know, however, is that we are not yet doing enough to help these children. I hope that the current attention being given to this devastating disease reflects a renewed commitment on the part of Congress and can bring new hope to families living with autism.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, today I am announcing the new winner of the Golden Jackpot Award which has been created to recognize indefensible government decisions that benefit special interests at the expense of the public interest. There are two worthy contestants for today's award. The recent Bush administration decision to eliminate contraceptive coverage for women in the Federal health insurance plans and to freeze funding for family planning programs is an amazing example of a ridiculous policy aimed at satisfying right-wing groups that cannot distinguish between abortion and family planning. Even this incredible decision pales next to Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham's rollback of air conditioner efficiency standards at a time when America is facing its worst energy problems in 25 years. This is an obscure decision that has enormous implications. Because of the rollback, the United States will have to build over 40 new power plants by the year 2020. The action benefits the manufacturers of air conditioners who contributed heavily to President Bush and Republicans, but it is a disaster for the American people, and Californians in particular. I give this award to Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in commemorating the Armenian Genocide. Today we solemnly remember the April 24, 1915 onslaught of the Ottoman Government's eight-year campaign of terror against its Armenian population. We mourn the systematic destruction of Armenian communities, the murder of one and a half million men, women, and children, and the forced deportation of over nearly one million others. This somber anniversary, however, also bears a stark warning. Eighty- six years ago, the world's willingness to ignore the bloodshed against Armenians set the stage for its complacency during Hitler's attempt to annihilate the Jews. Today, the world's resolve against historical revisionism of the Armenian Genocide will be a key determinant of our ability to stand against similar attempts at Holocaust denial. I am proud to acknowledge the Armenian Americans in my district and across the country who have dedicated themselves to preserving the memory of those who were persecuted, and to publicizing the United States records documenting this period. I join them and my colleagues in renewing our commitment to stand against governments that persecute their own people, and to insuring that no act of genocide will ever again go unnoticed or unmourned.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the ``Get Arsenic Out of Our Drinking Water Act.'' This legislation is necessary in order to prevent the Administration from irresponsibly weakening safe drinking water standards for arsenic. Without question, safe drinking water is critical to protecting public health. Yet two weeks ago we witnessed an extraordinary reversal in our nation's commitment to safe drinking water. Following extensive lobbying by special interests who contributed millions of dollars in campaign contributions, the Bush Administration revoked the new safe drinking water standard for arsenic. This decision threatens the health of millions of Americans who now drink water with elevated levels of arsenic. In response to this indefensible action, I--along with one hundred and sixty of my colleagues--are introducing legislation that will codify the standard so that the Bush Administration will not have the authority to revoke it. In January, the EPA responded to the scientific consensus on the health effects of arsenic and ordered that arsenic levels be reduced to 10 parts per billion. EPA took this action in response to a National Academy of Sciences report that recommended that the 1942 standard of 50 ppb be reduced ``as promptly as possible.'' The Academy determined that arsenic is an extremely potent carcinogen that causes bladder, lung, and skin cancer and may cause kidney and liver cancer, birth defects, and reproductive problems. By adopting this updated standard, the United States joined the rest of the developed world with an arsenic standard that will protect the public's health. The ``Get Arsenic Out of Our Drinking Water Act'' will protect the public health by codifying the new arsenic standard. It will also double the existing State Revolving Fund authorization to $2 billion annually, so that public water systems will have funds to meet the new arsenic standard. Since President Bush took office, the Administration has released anti-environmental initiatives at an alarming rate. The Administration's decision to revoke the arsenic standard for safe drinking water is one of the most egregious. American citizens deserve to have safe drinking water. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, last week I gave out the first of what will be a series of Golden Jackpot Awards to the mining industry and the EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, and administrator Christine Todd Whitman, for the incomprehensible decision to allow more arsenic in drinking water. We are going to be giving this award whenever we are confronted with decisions that exemplify amazing feats of lobbying that result in outrageous windfalls to special interests. Today we have a new winner. I am awarding this week's award to President Bush and Vice President Cheney on behalf of the entire Bush cabinet for their plan to completely repeal the estate tax. By insisting on total repeal and by passing today's Republican bill, the President and Vice President would share in as much as $50 million in benefits. Let me repeat that, they will share in $50 million in benefits. That is just for the Bush and Cheney families. This is not a bill that just helps the President and Vice President. Repealing the estate tax would provide as much as an average of $19 million for members of the Bush cabinet. Of course, Members of Congress are not being left behind, because under the Republican bill we will soon vote on the richest 50 Members of Congress getting $1 billion in benefits. That is $1 billion with a ``B.'' That is better than any pay raise I have seen proposed for Members of Congress. The breathtaking self-interest and enrichment in the Bush proposal is the very essence of the Golden Jackpot Award, and this award I am going to bestow on this administration for the jackpot that many of the members of the cabinet are going to hit if this repeal of the estate tax becomes law. It seems to me that we ought to recognize the enormous windfall that this special interest provision, this special interest bill, would have. I urge that we vote against the Republican proposal.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, today I am again joining with Representative Boehlert in introducing the Clean Smokestacks Act of 2001. This important legislation will finally cleanup the nation's dirty, antiquated powerplants. When I originally introduced the Clean Smokestacks Act with Representative Boehlert in the last Congress, we had a modest beginning. I think we had a total of 15 cosponsors and little attention. But by the end of last year, the bill's supporters had grown to over 120 House Members. This year, the Senate is joining in our effort. Senators Jeffords and Lieberman have introduced a companion bill in the Senate, entitled the Clean Power Act. I am hopeful that together we can get the job done. Electricity generation is our nation's single largest source of air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Nationally, power plants are responsible for about 40 percent of carbon dioxide emissions, 64 percent of sulfur dioxide emissions, 26 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 powerplants. President Bush was right when he promised during the campaign to support legislation that would reduce all four powerplant pollutants. The Clean Smokestacks Act and the Clean Power Act embody this sensible approach. In fact, prior to the president's surprising reversal last week, I had hoped we could win the President's support for our bipartisan approach. Our job has become more difficult given the President's unfortunate decision to oppose curbing carbon dioxide emissions. But I believe that we have reached the point of no turning back on a four pollutant approach for powerplant emissions. When the original Clean Air Act was enacted in 1970, the electric utility industry argued that stringent controls shouldn't 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 powerplants from the law's requirements, many of these facilities--which were already old in 1970--are still in use. In some cases, powerplants 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 pollution as the entire state of Massachusetts. Opponents of our effort say that it will cost too much to address carbon dioxide emissions. But there have been at least four other studies published in the last six months by the Department of Energy and others that conclude that the costs of a multi-pollutant strategy will be quite reasonable. In conclusion, let me commend Representative Boehlert and Senators Jeffords, Lieberman, Collins, and Schumer. 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. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues in celebrating 180 years of Greek Independence. March 25, the official Greek independence day, is a proud day for Greeks across the world. It is a powerful reminder of the strength and determination inspired by the ideals of freedom and self governance, and an important opportunity for Congress to rise and recognize the shared values and goals between Greece and the United States. Greece is a remarkable country with an exceptional past and a tremendous future. Its proud heritage as the ancient founder of democracy has evolved with great accomplishments like the war of independence, membership in NATO, and partnership in the European Union. I join my colleagues in recognition of this special occasion and the strong U.S.-Greece relationship. The ties between our two countries are underscored by strategic economic, military, and diplomatic ties, and are continually enhanced by the activism of vibrant Hellenic-American communities across the United States.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to urge my colleagues to support passage of H.R. 327, the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act. As my colleagues may recall, similar legislation was on the House floor during the 105th and the 106th Congresses, which I did not support. H.R. 327, however, does not contain the controversial provisions as in the past years that would have condoned violations of important health and safety laws. In addition to stripping the bill of the egregious language regarding violations, the majority worked with us to add new provisions that call for agencies to make it easier for small businesses to learn what is expected of them and improve the dissemination of regulatory information to the public. This bill calls on agencies to work together to create a way for a small business person to be able to contact one agency for information instead of multiple agencies as is currently required. I especially want to highlight one provision which calls on agencies to work toward an interactive computer system which will allow small businesses to electronically identify information collection requirements. A small business person should be able to go online and determine what are the government requirements with which the business needs to comply. Just this week the General Accounting Office released a report, Regulatory Management: Communication About Technology-Based Innovations Can Be Improved, drafted at my request and the request of Senators Lieberman and Thompson. It demonstrates how information technology can and should be used by agencies when they interact with the public to accomplish their missions. The report explains that increased use of information technology in regulatory management has the potential to yield significant benefits, including reducing burden on regulated entities; and I believe the changes to this bill start us on the right track. Mr. Chairman, of course this bill's attempt to help small businesses should not obscure what this Congress has done to hurt small businesses. This Republican Congress began down the wrong path earlier this month when it included anti-small business provisions in the bankruptcy bill it passed. One such provision created an inflexible trigger which requires a court to order liquidation even if the small business is still viable. Similarly, the President's budget recently submitted to Congress funding cuts of the Small Business Administration by 46.4 percent. Specifically, the budget eliminates the New Markets Venture Capital program, which provides venture capital and technical assistance to small businesses in less prosperous areas of the country. In addition, it eliminates the business link program which encourages mentoring between large and small businesses. Mr. Chairman, although there were a number of additional provisions that I would have liked to see in this bill, because this bill no longer has the violations sections and because some of the Democratic suggestions were included, I urge passage of H.R. 327. In closing, I would like to commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose), the subcommittee chairman; the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), the full committee chairman; and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney), the subcommittee ranking member. They have worked together to produce a bill that deserves our support.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) for yielding the time to me. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose the matter that is before us today. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my outrage over the Republican proposal to rollback important safety protections for American workers. For the first time in the history of the House, we are repealing critical protections for over 100 million American workers. The Congress has a responsibility to protect the safety and health of hundreds of thousands of workers--not the profits of big contributors. Today, I released a report with Representative George Miller on ergonomic injuries in California. This report makes clear that the repeal of the ergonomic rule will have a very real impact on California workers and the state's economy. More than one in four workplace injuries in California are repetitive stress injuries like carpel tunnel syndrome. In 1998, more than 52,000 California workers suffered ergonomic injuries so severe they were forced to miss at least one day of work. Many of these injuries cause workers to miss significant time away from work. More than 30,000 of the injuries cause workers to miss more than one week of work. The economic cost to the state is enormous--$4.5 billion a year. The real numbers may be much higher. Many workers fail to report their injuries out of fear they'll be fired or branded troublemakers, and other workers only realize the extent of their injuries when they can no longer work. Today's LA Times tells the story of Gloria Palomino, who worked in a chicken processing plant for over twenty years. For most of her career, she shot an airgun into chickens on a slaughter line--squeezing the triggers 30 to 40 times a minute. As a result, her fingers are constantly swollen and sore and her injuries are so severe she can no longer work. She says, ``How I battle in the morning to open my hands. Tell me, who will hire me with hands like this?'' The ergonomics rule came too late to help Gloria Palomino, but there will be many, many more like her if we repeal the rule today. I urge my colleagues to oppose this effort--which protects the profits of contributors at the expense of the health of America's workers.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, as one of America's staunchest allies and the only democracy in the Middle East, Israel continues to set a shining example of free and fair elections, the peaceful transition of power, and vibrant political discourse. I congratulate Prime Minister-elect Ariel Sharon on his victory and wish him well. I share the Prime Minister's conviction that Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat must bring an end to the violence and reign in terrorism. The Israeli election on February 6 once again demonstrated why the strong bond between the United States and Israel is continually reinforced by our shared values and shared goals. This is the foundation for America's firm solidarity with the State of Israel.