Henry Waxman

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in commemorating the 85th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide. On April 24, 1915, the Ottoman government unleashed an eight-year assault against its Armenian population. During this brutal campaign, one and a half million innocent men, women, and children were murdered, Armenian communities were systematically destroyed, and over one million people were forcibly deported. The pain of these atrocities is only compounded by the Turkish government's revisionism and denial of the tragic events that took place. This is what Elie Wiesel has called a ``double killing''-- murdering the dignity of the survivors and the remembrance of the crime. It is incumbent upon us to stand up against these efforts and make United States records documenting this period available to students, historians, and the descendants of those who survived. This somber anniversary is a tribute to the memory of the victims of the Armenian Genocide, and a painful reminder that the world's inaction left a tragic precedent for other acts of senseless bloodshed. The road from Armenia to Auschwitz is direct. If more attention had been centered on the slaughter of these innocent men, women, and children, perhaps the events of the Holocaust might never have taken place. Today, we vow once more that genocide will not go unnoticed and unmourned. We pledge to stand up against governments that persecute their own people, and declare our commitment to fight all crimes against humanity and the efforts to hide them from the rest of the world.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to recognize the Simon Wiesenthal Center--Museum of Tolerance Library and Archives, an extraordinary institution in the 29th District of California, which I represent, that is dedicated to teaching the importance of Holocaust remembrance and the defense of human rights. The Library and Archives is being honored this week in conjunction with National Library Week; chosen by the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) as one of four libraries, nationwide, to receive the first annual National Award for Library Services. The Simon Wiesenthal Center Library and Archives' broad collections document the Holocaust in Nazi Germany and the many other tragic genocides of the 20th century. The library holdings of over 30,000 books and periodicals document antisemitism, racism, and related issues, and are available to researchers, media, students and the public. The archives, containing an extensive array of original documents, manuscripts, personal narratives, diaries, artifacts, photographs, magazines, newspaper, maps, and original artwork, have evolved into a primary research depository for materials dealing with the Holocaust and the pre-World War II Jewish experience. In partnership with the Simon Wiesenthal Center Museum of Tolerance, the Library and Archives maintains a number of excellent education programs to fulfill its mission of teaching the dangers of bigotry and the importance of tolerance. In addition to answering over 500 inquiries a week, hosts numerous visiting authors, scholars and civic leaders to bring its message to the community. The Library and Archives also sponsors a dynamic ''Contact a Survivor'' program of direct, electronic, eye-witness discussions between Holocaust survivors and students. The IMLS award is a tribute to the power of libraries to reach families and communities across America and around the world, and the Simon Wiesenthal Center Library and Archives is a deserving recipient. Under the leadership of Adaire Klein, it continues to make a tremendous contribution to preserving the lessons of the Holocaust and the legacy of its victims for future generations. We owe the Simon Wiesenthal Center, Ms. Klein and her staff a debt of gratitude for this distinguished record of accomplishment. I thank them for the devoted service and extend my best wishes for the future.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, today the Supreme Court recognized that tobacco use is perhaps the most single significant threat to public health in the United States. Unfortunately, the Court also ruled that Congress had not given the Food and Drug Administration explicit authority to regulate tobacco. We can change that today. The Republican leadership blocked legislation in the past to give FDA this authority. This afternoon, I will reintroduce a bill that gives FDA explicit authority to regulate tobacco. The Republican leadership has sole power to bring this bill to the floor this week or next week or next month. But the day has passed to ignore tobacco's deadly toll and the thousands of children who start smoking every day. We cannot look to FDA. We cannot look to the courts. We have the responsibility, and we must act. Two years ago, I reached a comprehensive agreement with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), the chairman of the Committee on Commerce, to reduce smoking by children. The Republican leadership must let the House consider tobacco legislation. It is long overdue. We had hoped the Supreme Court would have allowed the FDA to regulate tobacco on its own. Their decision today by 5 to 4 has sent the issue back to the Congress. It is now our responsibility. We can ignore that responsibility no longer. With the bill that I will introduce today, it will be very clear that FDA will be able to regulate tobacco as they have chosen to do to stop them from targeting our kids. I call on the Republican leadership to work on a bipartisan basis to give the FDA this authority. We must stop tobacco companies from going after our children at the ages of 12, 13, and 14 to get them to start smoking a product that they know will hook many of them and keep them smoking into adulthood.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am introducing two bills today relating to the regulation of tobacco products. Today the Supreme Court recognized that tobacco use ``poses perhaps the single most significant threat to public health in the United States.'' Unfortunately, the Court also ruled that Congress has not given the Food and Drug Administration explicit authority to regulate tobacco. So now Congress must act to deal with this enormous problem. The first bill I am introducing is comprehensive legislation that represents what our country genuinely needs to reduce tobacco use by children. It explicitly authorizes the Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco products; it establishes an innovative and effective performance standard that gives the tobacco industry meaningful economic incentives to reduce the numbers of children that smoke; it establishes a national policy on environmental tobacco smoke; and it creates a new nationwide public education campaign on tobacco. None of these measures alone are the answer to reducing tobacco use-- but taken together, they will succeed in reducing the number of children who smoke. They are what we need to do in our battle against the deadly toll of tobacco, and will save millions of lives for generations to come. I am concerned, however, that some may try to avoid acting on tobacco legislation by arguing there's not enough time in this session to deal with a comprehensive bill. And I'm concerned that some may try to avoid dealing with this urgent issue by pretending that comprehensive legislation makes it more difficult to deal quickly with today's Supreme Court decision. So I'm introducing a second bill that only deals with the question of FDA jurisdiction over tobacco. This legislation explicitly authorizes the FDA to regulate tobacco products, and does not address any of the other issues that Congress must confront in crafting effective national tobacco legislation. The policies in both bills have been before Congress for many years. We've held years of hearings on these issues and tried to examine carefully every possible consequence of legislation. The time to act is now. In 1998 I reached a comprehensive agreement with Congressman Tom Bliley, the Chairman of the Commerce Committee, to reduce smoking by children. For reasons I still don't understand, the Republican leadership blocked that legislation from ever being considered. Now, once again, the Republican leadership has the sole power to bring legislation to the floor. I hope they won't miss another opportunity to protect our children. American Lung Association, Washington, DC, March 21, 2000. Hon. Henry A. Waxman, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Waxman: The American Lung Association is pleased to endorse the Child Tobacco Use Prevention Act of 2000 and the FDA Tobacco Jurisdiction Act of 2000. These bills will grant explicit authority to the Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco products. Full, unfettered, FDA authority is needed to protect the public health and provide oversight on how tobacco products are manufactured, labeled, distributed, advertised, sold and marketed. We strongly support the additional public health provisions included in the Child Tobacco Use Prevention Act. Company- specific performance standards to reduce child tobacco use, smokefree environments and tobacco prevention and education programs complement full FDA authority and greatly enhance the effort to reduce the disease and death caused by tobacco. Congress must act quickly and pass this critical public health legislation this year. Full, unfettered FDA authority over tobacco products is the top priority for the American Lung Association. Thank you for your continued leadership to protect children from tobacco. Sincerely, John R. Garrison, Chief Executive Officer.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1827, the Government Waste Correction Act of 2000, which requires agencies to use a financial management technique known as recovery auditing. Implementation of recovery auditing has the potential to save millions of taxpayers' dollars by ensuring that overpayments made by the federal government are both identified and collected. Just like in the private sector, the federal government makes overpayments. And just like in the private sector, efforts should be made to recovery such overpayments. These overpayments are often not intentional. Frequently, these are inadvertent overpayments due to duplicate payments, pricing errors, missed cash discounts and the like. By requiring the performance of recovery auditing, we are increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of the federal government. Mr. Chairman, I want to highlight two important provisions of H.R. 1827 which ensure (1) fundamental privacy rights and (2) fair treatment of federal workers. H.R. 1827 requires audits of services that are for the ``direct benefit and use'' of government agencies. A number of such services involve the use of individuals' personal information, including health information. For example, health care services provided to veterans by community based health clinics under contract with the federal government may be subject to audits under the bill. Our colleague, Representative Jim Turner, deserves credit for making sure these audits won't infringe on legitimate privacy concerns. His amendment, which was adopted by the Government Reform Committee, provides essential privacy protections for individually identifiable information obtained by contractors through recovery audits and recovery activities under this bill. The Turner amendment adds needed balance and safeguards to H.R. 1827. I am also encouraged by the inclusion of my amendment to H.R. 1827 requiring public-private cost comparisons. We should let federal employees--not private contractors--perform recovery audits when the federal employees can do a better job at lower cost to the taxpayer than private contractors. This amendment, which provides for current Office of Management and Budget (OMB) circular cost comparisons, ensures that federal workers will not be prevented from doing recovery auditing work because of any arbitrary federal full time equivalent ceilings. Mr. Chairman, recovery auditing is an important tool and should be used to identify inadvertent overpayments. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1827.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2366. This bill would jeopardize the enforcement of the laws which protect our health and our environment, and undermine the responsibility of companies to make product safety a priority. It is wrong to assume that a company should be less accountable for damage it causes simply because it has fewer employees, or to pretend that a company's smaller size in any way mitigates the extent of the damage it can cause. Think of the far reaching impact of a biotech company that markets a faulty vaccine; a small chemical company that pollutes groundwater; or a small business gun dealer that sold weapons used in a school shooting. Furthermore, the $250,000 cap on punitive damages is not only an arbitrary slap in the face of the innocent individuals who suffer, it is a dangerous green light for corporate irresponsibility. Placing a quantitative limit on damages turns liability into a cost-benefit business equation where product safety becomes a choice rather than an imperative. Let me give you a very serious example of how this legislation could interfere with important efforts to deter environmental degradation. In literally thousands of locations throughout California, the fuel additive MTBE is showing up in groundwater. In my district, for example, the city of Santa Monica has faced the most serious MTBE contamination of any community in the country. Before MTBE contaminated Santa Monica's drinking water, groundwater provided 70 percent of the city's water supply. Now, after the contamination, the city imports more than 80 percent of its drinking water from northern California and the Colorado River. In short, MTBE from leaking underground storage tanks has shut down our drinking water well fields, making the drinking water taste and smell like turpentine. This is not an isolated problem. It seems each week more MTBE contamination is found in California--as well as in the northeastern States. And in Santa Monica the cleanup could cost as much as $200 million. Congress should be working to address this serious problem. We should be moving to prevent further contamination and working to aggressively clean up MTBE contamination. However, this legislation takes us in the opposite direction by shielding negligent polluters from punitive damages under State tort claims. Recently, the TV show ``60 minutes'' documented a small town in California which has been turned into a ghost town due to MTBE contamination from a single gas station. When the city lost their drinking water, the businesses shut down, the residents lost their livelihoods, and the few residents who remain are drinking contaminated drinking water. It makes no sense for Congress to move to protect this gas station owner from State tort claims, in any way, when their leaking underground storage tanks have decimated a small town. This bill would create a giant loophole for small companies to subvert Federal and State health and environmental laws, and severely weaken their deterrence against faulty business practices. If you want strong deterrence against MTBE contamination of groundwater, oppose this ill-considered legislation. I also want the record to be clear that the amendment offered by Representatives Rogan and Hutchinson does not address the critical problems with this legislation. Even with the adoption of their amendment, punitive damages awarded under State tort claims and citizen suits under environmental laws are severely limited. The Rogan-Hutchinson amendment would allow the $250,000 cap to be exceeded if the defendant acted with specific intent to cause the type of harm for which the action was brought. In the case of MTBE contamination, no business has acted with the intent to contaminate groundwater. However, some businesses may have acted so irresponsibly that we should send a clear signal that we cannot tolerate this behavior. Especially, when the cost is so great on our communities. With MTBE contamination showing up all over the country, why should we be establishing a safe harbor for polluters? I urge all members to oppose this bill, regardless of whether or not this amendment passes.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, as the senior member of the Los Angeles County Congressional delegation, I am honored to pay tribute to the County of Los Angeles on its 150th anniversary. On August 1, 1769, a Spanish expedition under the command of Gaspar de Portola came upon an Indian village called Yang-na along the banks of a river which Portola named El Rio de Nuestra Senora la Reina de los Angeles de Porciuncula, (the River of Our Lady the Queen of the Angels of Porciuncula), which was quickly shortened to Los Angeles. This was the site of present-day Los Angeles, but the Spanish did not return to Los Angeles until 1781, when a party of 44 colonists from Mexico was settled by Don Felipe de Neve, California's provincial governor, as part of Spain's effort to strengthen its control over its territories in the north. These first Angelinos fashioned a crude settlement to produce grain, just as the friars of San Gabriel Mission had done for a decade. Americans first arrived in Los Angeles by way of nearby San Pedro, then an unimproved roadstead port. Beginning in 1805, U.S. vessels traded intermittently with the area's farmers and, in 1818, Joseph Chapman, a crew member, stayed long enough to help with construction of the town's first church. In 1826, the fur trapper Jedidiah Smith became the first white man to reach Los Angeles by traveling overland from the Missouri frontier, but he was followed by few others. It was not until the 1830s, with the arrival of whaling and seal hunting ships, that Americans became a regular presence in the provincial community. Los Angeles had been affected little by the revolution that replaced Spanish rule with that of an independent Mexican government in 1821. Mexico's Congress declared Los Angeles the capital of California in 1835, but the provincial governor refused to move south from San Francisco, so the city's relative isolation and the local authority of its prosperous farmers and ranchers remained unthreatened. By the 1840's, Los Angeles had become the largest settlement in Southern California, attracting its first party of American pioneers, led by William Workman and John Rowland, in 1841. The Mexican-American War of 1846 ushered in a new era for Los Angeles. The city was occupied in August by U.S. troops under Commodore Robert Field Stockton and Captain John C. Fremont, but the 50-man garrison left to hold the farm town was driven out by local residents a few months later. Stockton returned in January 1847, supported by land troops from New Mexico under General Stephen Watts Kearny, and retook the city in a battle with Mexican forces American influence grew steadily thereafter, with the first English- language school and the first Protestant church arriving in 1850, the same year Los Angeles was officially incorporated and named the county seat. During the Gold Rush years in northern California, Los Angeles became known as the ``Queen of the Cow Counties'' for its role in supplying beef and other foodstuffs to hungry miners. In 1876, seven years after the completion of the transcontinental railroad, Los Angeles was finally connected to the nation's rail system when the Union Pacific put in a line from San Francisco. The next year, local growers sent off their first carload of oranges, adding a new agricultural industry to the County's economy. Then, in 1885, the Santa Fe Railroad reached Los Angeles with a line that connected directly to eastern markets and touched off a fare war with the Union Pacific that would bring rates as low as one dollar for the trip west from St. Louis. Within a few years, more than 100,000 newcomers had arrived in the area, creating a real estate boom that drove land prices skyward. Oil became a key ingredient in the Los Angeles economy in 1892, when Edward L. Doheny and Charles A. Canfield drilled the first well in a resident's front lawn. Soon there were 1,400 wells within the city and more in the surrounding area. By this time, however, Los Angeles was beginning to fear a shortage of water. Located in a semi-desert region, it required more than El Rio de Nuestra Senora la Reina de los Angeles, now called the Los Angeles River, to sustain its growing population and expanding industries. In 1904, William Mulholland, chief engineer of the Lost Angeles water department, proposed bringing water by aqueduct across the Mojave Desert from the Sierra Nevada range, and by 1908 the project was underway. In just five years, Mulholland constructed an aqueduct more than 200 miles long, running through 142 tunnels, tapping the Owens River, and virtually opened the floodgates on a milestone in the engineering and environmental history of the West. The early decades of the 20th century also saw the completion of Los Angeles harbor in 1914, just in time to profit from the shipping traffic working its way up the California coast from the newly completed Panama Canal. Los Angeles became the home of the American motion picture industry in these decades as well. Producers flocked there for the steady sunlight, which was vital to the outdoor filming techniques of the time, and found that Los Angeles could provide a variety of backdrops, ranging from desert wilderness to awesome snow- capped peaks. Beginning in 1911, they settled in a community that had been established by a pious land speculator during the boom years of the 1880's--a community that turned into the legendary Hollywood we know today. The population of Los Angeles soared, doubling by the 1920's. The war years brought more manufacturing and industry and, with it, more people. Los Angeles today is a diverse County, ethnically and economically. It has become one of the United States' major urban centers. It is a leading manufacturing, commercial, transportation, financial, and international trade center. Aerospace production has flourished, and the entertainment industry has broadcasting as well as production centers in the area. Tourism is an anchor of the Los Angeles economy. There is an Today, instead of Los Angeles' riches coming from the surrounding hills of gold, our riches come from the great wealth of people, culture, and diversity. As the largest County in California, with an economy larger than all but eight countries in the world, we owe our prosperity to the men and women who have sacrificed and dedicated their lives to the social and economic strength of our County. Spanish explorer Gaspar de Portola bestowed upon us the name, the City of Angels. Today, the County of Los Angeles will begin a year-long celebration of its 150th anniversary. During this historic celebration, I encourage the people of the County to make a personal covenant with each other to honor our history, respect our diversity, and challenge ourselves to ensure a prosperous future. The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors has proclaimed February 18, 19, and 20, 2000 as ``Los Angeles County's 150th Birthday Days,'' beginning with special open houses sponsored by various County departments, opening the County's museums and gardens free to the public, a parade of Nations with hundreds of floats and marching bands, and a Festival of Nations with over 35 countries participating with native costumes, food, arts and crafts, and music. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the County of Los Angeles on its 150th anniversary. Our golden history is reflected throughout the County and is a constant reminder of the wealth of opportunity that continues to grace the people of the County of Los Angeles.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues Mr. Berman and Mr. Sherman, and I rise today to ask our colleagues to join us in honoring the extraordinary career of our dear friend Phil Blazer. Phil has dedicated his thirty-five-year career to serving the Jewish community as editor and publisher of the Jewish News and as an effective activist for important Jewish and human rights causes. Phil began his career as an eager and wide-eyed seventeen-year-old radio announcer at KVFM in the San Fernando Valley of California. He moved to Minnesota for college and continued his radio career at KUXL, and quickly began a Jewish community radio program for Minneapolis and St. Paul. After college, he retuned to KVFM as station manager and continued his Jewish community program in the San Fernando Valley. Phil's current radio program is now on KIEV and is heard throughout Southern California. He has many devoted listeners who depend on his program for news, perspective, and insight. In 1977, Phil started a television program, which still airs today and is now carried in over 300 communities in Southern California. It is also broadcast in New York City and New Jersey on Sundays. His audience numbers over 250,000 people and he has become an icon to his audiences throughout the nation. Perhaps Phil's greatest contribution has been his newspaper, The Jewish News, which he founded in 1973. Hardly a local paper, it now serves 73 countries worldwide. The Jewish News serves to connect distinct Jewish communities by sharing local, national and international news and trends. It is a beloved paper and a staple of Los Angeles Jewish life. Phil's career has also been dedicated to human rights work and Jewish causes. He is a visionary leader who has worked to shape critical historical events. In 1973, he helped smuggle a Torah into Leningrad to support the Jews of Russia. In 1978, he traveled to Washington, D.C. at the invitation of former Secretary of State Cyrus Vance to confer with the State Department and the White House as a participant in the redirection of U.S. Middle East policy. Also in 1978, Phil attended the historic Begin/Sadat meeting in Jerusalem. The following year he aired a landmark broadcast of his radio program via satellite from the studios of Radio Cairo as the guest of Anwar Sadat. Phil's philanthropic work continued in 1985 when he organized the now famous Operation Joshua, which succeeded in rescuing nearly 1,000 Ethiopian Jews from refugee camps in Sudan and resettling them in Israel. In 1992, Phil developed California legislation with Assemblyman Richard Katz that mandated a course of study about the Holocaust be taught in all California public schools. This bill was signed into law by the Governor of California on September 21, 1992. These are a few examples of Phil's tireless dedication to Jewish causes and human rights around the world. His real gift, however, is his compassion and love for humankind. While successfully building his own media empire, Phil has never lost sight of his commitment to better the human condition in every way possible. He is truly an example of one person making a difference in thousands of people's lives. Mr. Speaker, we ask our colleagues to join us in honoring Phil Blazer for his remarkable accomplishments over the past thirty-five years and in wishing him continued success and happiness in all future endeavors.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the basic provisions of H.R. 1180, the Work Incentive Improvement Act. The core program contained in this bill is designed to provide support and health care assistance to severely disabled people who want to work despite the obstacles their disabilities present, indeed who are determined to work and become productive and contributing members of society. These are people who need to keep their health care coverage through Medicaid and Medicare to enable them to stay in the work force. We owe them nothing less. It is a testament to the compelling nature of their case that this bill has had such broad and bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate. The President has also been strongly committed to seeing it enacted, from his call to the Congress to enact this program in his State of the Union message last January to the final negotiations to bring this bill here today. And I want to particularly note the contributions of Rick Lazio, who I was pleased to join as the original sponsor of the bill, Nancy Johnson and Bob Matsui from the Ways and Means Committee, and John Dingell and Charlie Rangel who served on the conference committee. We can all be proud of its enactment. I am especially pleased that the conference report increased the funds available to support demonstrations by States to provide health services to persons with potentially severe disabilities in order to keep their health from deteriorating and to allow them to continue to work. Surely, this is one of the most sensible and cost-effective things we can do. But it is unfortunate that this exemplary piece of legislation has been used in the closing days of this session to pursue other agendas. The conference report includes a rider added to H.R. 1180 through stealth and political extortion which delays vital reforms of our national organ allocation system. The one-year moratorium on the Department of Health and Human Service's Final Rule expired last month. Last week, the Administration and the appropriators, including Chairman Young and Mr. Obey, agreed to a final compromise 42-day comment period on the Final Rule's implementation. But the defenders of UNOS and the status quo weren't satisfied. They twisted arms behind closed doors. They blocked passage of the Health Research and Quality Act of 1999 and the reauthorization of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration. They blocked enactment of critical medical education payments for children's hospitals. And they subverted the authority of the committees of jurisdiction. Now, the compromise is being abandoned by the Republican leadership. The commitments made to the Administration and to Members have been broken in bad faith. And what's the result? The 42 days becomes 90 days. Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. There is no excuse for this action. The Final Rule is the result of years of deliberation. It embodies the consensus that organs should be shared more broadly to end unjust racial and geographical disparities. Every day of delay is another day of unconscionable 200 to 300 percent disparities in transplant and survival rates across the country--disparities which the Final Rule addresses. Every day delays action on the Institute of Medicine's recommendation ``that the Final Rule be implemented'' because broader sharing ``will result in more opportunities to transplant sicker patients without adversely affecting less sick patients.'' And every day condones a status quo of gross racial injustice and unjust, parochial self-interest. Mr. Speaker, the status quo is slowly killing patients who deserve to live, but are deprived of that right by a system that stacks the odds against them. But in spite of this rider, in spite of the delay and the back-room politics, reforms will come. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support the Final Rule and to oppose the organ allocation rider.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3257, the State Flexibility Clarification Act, amends the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) to require Congressional committees and the Congressional Budget Office to give States guidance on how to reach program goals if Congress decides to reduce funding to the States. This bill does not change the definition of an unfunded mandate. Therefore, only those funding reductions for programs already defined as an unfunded mandate under the existing law would be subject to these additional analyses. As originally introduced, H.R. 3257 would have amended the definition of an unfunded mandate to include Medicaid and other entitlement programs. Under existing law, the Congressional Budget Office has determined that these entitlement programs are exempt from UMRA because States are given sufficient flexibility to meet minimum Federal requirements without undue burden. If this definition was changed to include Medicaid, then any legislation that tightens quality standards; improves nursing home requirements; protects funding for rural or community health centers with a prospective payment system; or enhances benefits or services provided under Medicaid would become subject to a point of order on the House floor and the other procedural requirements under UMRA. Because of our concerns, the bill's sponsors agreed to remove this change in definition. The gentleman from Georgia implied in his statement that this bill would change the definition of an unfunded mandate to include Medicaid and other entitlement programs. He was referring to the bill as originally introduced. The bill we are considering today would not amend the definition of an unfunded mandate. Therefore, Medicaid and other entitlement programs would continue to not be subject to UMRA and Congress will still be able to provide necessary oversight to ensure that States are using Federal funds for these programs for their intended purposes.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join my fellow cosponsors of H. Res. 325 in highlighting the importance of expanding research, treatment and education on diabetes. I am particularly pleased to recognize the work of the American Diabetes Association on World Diabetes Day, which was observed by the World Health Organization and more than one hundred international scientific and patient advocacy groups this past Sunday November 14. Today, managing their diabetes is a health priority for more than 140 million people across the world. Even before its clinical symptoms were recorded by an Egyptian physician in the 15th century B.C., diabetes was a chronic disease affecting people across the world. Only today, as research into genetic and environmental factors continues, can it be said that real hope exists for finding a cure to diabetes. In the United States, diabetes is the sixth leading cause of death. Disproportionately affecting the elderly and communities of color, diabetes is a heavy burden on the health of patients, the lives of their families and communities, and upon our system of health care. It is therefore fitting that Congress should join patients and their families in renewing a commitment to preventing and to finding a cure for diabetes. Finally, recognizing that important discoveries are often made where we least expect, and that research in one field will often spark crucial insights in others, I hope in the future that Congress will act upon legislation to further enhance the work of the National Institutes of Health on juvenile diabetes as well as on other auto immune diseases, such as multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis and Sjogren's Syndrome. I congratulate Ms. DeGette and Mr. Nethercutt, the chairs of the Congressional Diabetes Caucus, and Mr. LaFalce, the sponsor of the resolution, for having advanced this resolution before the Congress adjourns.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the American Heart Association on the occasion of the 1999 Westside American Heart Walk. The Westside American Heart Walk will kick off on Saturday, November 20, 1999. This year's event chair is Philip P. Thomas, the Chief Executive Officer of the V.A. Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System. More than 3,500 enthusiastic walkers are expected to participate in the non-competitive 5K walk and fun run. Proceeds from the event will go toward cardiovascular research grants and community education programs throughout the greater Los Angeles area. I am delighted to participate in this very important cause. Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in our country. It takes the lives of about 960,000 each year, including more than 25,000 residents of Los Angeles County. I want to commend the American Heart Association for its fight against cardiovascular disease and strokes. It raised $312 million during fiscal year 1997-1998 for research and education and community programs. Without the hard work and dedication of more than 4 million volunteers, the American Heart Association could not fulfill its important mission each year. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Philip P. Thomas and the staff, volunteers, and friends of the American Heart Association on their tremendous work to make the 1999 Westside American Heart Walk a success.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, it's hard to escape the conclusion that this resolution--by its very name--is designed to attack and cast doubt on fetal tissue research. First, let's be clear. The law that authorizes fetal tissue research, The NIH Revitalization Act of 1993, which I helped author, contains strong protections against the abuses alleged in this resolution. While we should be concerned if these protections are violated, this inflammatory resolution clearly means to whip up opposition to all fetal tissue research by substituting sound bites for facts. The facts are that fetal tissue research is subject to Federal, State and even local regulation. It is subject to informed consent. It is subject to audit by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Violations of Federal protections are subject to criminal penalties. Congress and the American public have already decided that fetal tissue research is both legal and ethical. It is crucial to women's health and reproductive research. It is enormously promising for Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer's disease, Tay-Sachs disease and juvenile diabetes. It could help cure victims of stroke and brain cancer. We should always do appropriate oversight. But a resolution that talks about ``baby body parts'' is not the way to do it. This resolution uses rhetoric to conceal its attack on the hopes of Americans with Alzheimer's and MS. It resorts to linguistic tricks to mask its impact on American mothers seeking cures to genetic birth defects--mothers who could have healthier babies as a result of fetal tissue research. I am very disappointed in the House. In the waning days of this Congress, we should be enacting the Patients Bill of Rights. We should be working on the Medicare drug benefit. But instead, once again, the House Republican leadership is kow-towing to its pro-life right-wing with misleading and sensationalist rhetoric. I urge my colleagues to oppose the resolution.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, in 1997, we knew there was concern about the long-term financial health of Medicare, because we knew the baby boom generation would soon became eligible for the program. But what did we do? We slashed Medicare payments to providers of care far beyond what was sensible--not to use that money for Medicare, but in order to take it and use it for tax cuts. Now we are faced with the consequences of that action. But today we are attempting to remedy some of the effects of that law by a process that is just as hasty and imperfect. And so we do not know if we are really addressing the problems satisfactorily. What we do know is we did not do anything in this Congress nor in this bill to assure the viability of the Medicare program as the President proposed to do. We are certainly not doing anything to address the needs of the seniors on Medicare to provide prescription drugs for them. This is both unfair and irresponsible. We are not dealing with some small program that has limited impact. What we do will affect millions of Medicare beneficiaries and virtually all health providers in this country-teaching hospitals, home health providers, rural and inner city institutions--all of them are affected. Of course I will vote for this bill because it is the only choice before us, and because we clearly need to remedy some of the most severe problems caused by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. But this process is wrong. The Republican majority has denied us the opportunity to provide help for Medicare beneficiaries to secure more affordable drugs. We could and should be voting today to stop the discrimination our seniors face when they are charged prices frequently more than a hundred percent greater than HMOs or favored buyers secure. My Government Reform staff has conducted more than 140 surveys in Members' districts throughout the country, and we have found this price discrimination against seniors over and over again. They pay more than our neighbors in Canada, they pay more than the Federal government, they pay more than HMOs--and they pay much more than they can afford. We need to add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare for all beneficiaries. But until we do, we at least have to stop the price discrimination against seniors. This bill should have provided the opportunity to do so. Why is the majority blocking the effort to offer an amendment to do that and help seniors everywhere? I ask my Republican colleagues: what are they afraid of? Are they afraid to let Medicare beneficiaries know where they stand on drug company price discrimination against seniors? Medicare beneficiaries and providers deserve better than the hasty and limited action we take today.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, the ``Statement of Managers'' on the financial services modernization bill, S. 900, contains an inaccurate description of the medical records provision that was in the House version of the bill, H.R. 10, but not in S. 900. The statement claims that the provision ``requires insurance companies and their affiliates to protect the confidentiality of individually identifiable customer health and medical and genetic information.'' In fact, the medical records language in H.R. 10 represented a major invasion of the privacy of millions of Americans. The language would have allowed health insurers to disclose health records without the consent or knowledge of the affected individual for a broad range of purposes, none of which were defined in the bill. These purposes included ``insurance underwriting,'' ``participating in research projects,'' and ``risk control,'' among a long list of others. Under H.R. 10, any health insurer could have sold or disclosed the records of its patients to any health, life, disability, or other insurance company without the individual's knowledge or consent. The provision also allowed health insurers to sell or disclose patient records for any ``research project,'' whether it was research into credit ratings of the patients or research of mental health services to Members of Congress. The medical records language in H.R. 10 also excluded essential privacy protections. For example, the provision failed to place any restrictions on law enforcement access to health records; provide individuals the right to access or inspect their health records; provide individuals the ability to seek redress when their privacy rights are violated; or prevent entities that obtained health information under the bill from redisclosing the information to third parties, including to employers, to newspapers, or for marketing purposes. Because of the serious flaws with H.R. 10's medical records provision, groups representing millions of individuals across the country opposed the language. Physicians, nurses, patients, consumers, psychiatrists, other professional mental health counselors, and employees groups, as well as privacy advocates, and organizations representing individuals with disabilities, individuals with rare diseases, individuals with AIDS, and senior citizens, among others, all opposed this language. These groups included the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Nurses Association, the Christian Coalition, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the American Association of Retired Persons, and the Consumers Coalition for Health Privacy, among scores of others. Further, 21 State attorneys general stated that the medical records provisions would permit ``widespread use and disclosure of sensitive information without the individual's knowledge or consent, while providing only limited remedies for violations and no apparent limitations on re-disclosure.'' Editorial boards at newspapers including the Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, The Chicago Tribune, and USA Today also opposed H.R. 10's medical records language. I am pleased that S. 900 does not contain the anti-privacy medical records language that was in H.R. 10. However, while the omission of this provision prevents damage to peoples' privacy rights, there remains a need to address the lack of comprehensive privacy protection for Americans' health records. The medical privacy regulations proposed by the Administration last week mark a step forward in establishing meaningful Federal medical privacy protections. The regulations, however, are limited by statutory constraints. Congress can and must act to build on the foundation established by the proposed regulations to ensure comprehensive medical privacy protection. I will continue to work to achieve that goal.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I will support this legislation because I entered into an agreement with the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Pease, and the gentleman from California, Mr. Horn. Under our understanding, I agreed to support moving this legislation through the House if the General Services Administration did not find a viable alternative for the postal building in Terre Haute within 30 days. The 30 days are up, and although GSA is continuing to analyze and investigate the property, it has not yet found an entity interested in buying or taking the property. Nevertheless, although I am supporting moving this legislation through the House, I continue to have genuine reservations about H.R. 2513. I hope Mr. Pease will work to resolve these issues as this legislation moves forward. H.R. 2513 provides that the postal services building in Terre Haute will be transferred to GSA. It also provides the U.S. Postal Service with an option to remain in the building rent-free for 20 years. In addition, this bill authorizes $5,000,000 for necessary renovations to the building and to acquire parking space to accommodate existing and future offices. I am not sure that this is the best policy. It ordinarily does not make sense to force GSA to own a building it does not want or need. GSA has explained the many difficulties it will have in leasing space in the facility. The building has a 55 percent vacancy rate, and it is not clear that this rate will increase enough to cover the costs of the renovations. In addition, there now appears to be little justification for allowing the Postal Service to have office space rent-free for 20 years. In essence, I fear that this bill could require GSA to sink millions of dollars into a property when there is little chance that the Federal Government will be able to recoup those costs. Mr. Speaker, in addition to my concerns about the substance of this bill, I am also troubled by the inconsistent information that has circulated regarding this bill. During a September 29, 1999, subcommittee hearing on H.R. 2513, which was held at my insistence, the parties concerned came to an agreement to postpone a decision on how to proceed with the Terre Haute Post Office building for 1 month. During that month, GSA was to review the potential options for the building, including a directed sale, and report to us no later than October 29, 1999, regarding those options. If GSA did not report in that timeframe or failed to report a viable alternative to H.R. 2513, I agreed to move H.R. 2513 to the floor under suspension of the rules. On October 29, 1999, GSA reported to us that there was a potential purchaser, the Vigo County School District. My staff also contacted the treasurer of the Vigo County School District about their interest. The treasurer indicated that the school district was interested and that it needed more space. The treasurer also said that the school district needed another month in which to do a cost-benefit analysis. It thus appeared that there was a viable alternative for the property. Mr. Pease's staff disputed this point, however, and by the end of the day the school district's interest appears to have evaporated. Late in the day, my staff received a call from the superintendent of the Vigo County School District. With Mr. Pease's chief of staff present in his office, the superintendent indicated that the school district was not a viable alternative and that its interest was just lukewarm. In addition, I have received conflicting information regarding the Postal Service's intentions. It was my understanding initially that the provision in the bill giving the Postal Service free rent for 20 years was justified because but-for the free rent, the Postal Service had no intention of staying downtown. On October 29, however, we learned that Postal Service had always intended on keeping a presence in downtown Terre Haute, just not in the Federal building in question. As the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Turner, has rightly pointed out, it doesn't seem necessary to give free rent to the Postal Service. This is especially true if it intended on paying rent in another building. This point has significant ramifications. The fact that the Postal Service must receive space rent-free detracts from the building. In fact, it may be the reason that GSA has to date been apparently unable to find a viable alternative. Mr. Speaker, I am not going to vote against this bill. However, I hope that Mr. Pease and my colleagues in the Senate will take my comments into consideration as this bill moves through their Chamber.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness and shock that I rise to mourn the loss of Armenian Prime Minister Vazgen Sargsian, Speaker of the Parliament Karen Demirchian, and the Members of Parliament who were killed in the legislature on Wednesday, October 27, 1999. Their exemplary leadership contributed immensely to the bold political and economic reforms that are transforming Armenia into a vibrant democracy. Their dedication helped Armenia evolve toward transparency, peace and stability. It is painful that the attack takes place at such a hopeful time in the Nagorno-Karabakh peace talks, and only one month after the Prime Minister's successful trip to the United States. As a member of the Congressional Caucus on Armenia, I condemn these acts of terror. It would be an injustice to the memory of these courageous leaders to let an assassin's bullets disrupt their important work. I join the President, the Vice President and my colleagues in extending my deepest condolences to the families of the victims, President Kocharian, the Armenian people, and their friends in America. Our thoughts and prayers are with them doing this difficult time in their history.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am introducing private legislation today that would grant my constituent, Zohreh Farhang Ghahfarokhi, permanent residency in the United States. In 1984, Zohreh Farhang Ghahfarokhi's husband, an Iranian citizen, brought her and their young daughter, Shahrzad, on a business trip to the United States. The trip was successful and Ms. Ghahfarokhi's husband secured a succession of legal business visas to stay in the United States. A second daughter, Sepideh, was born 3 years later in Los Angeles. In 1994, Ms. Ghahfarokhi's husband filed an application for permanent residency with the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) on behalf of himself, his wife, and their daughter, Shahrzad. The family was interviewed at the INS Los Angeles District Office in March 1996 and expected to be issued green cards. In the summer of 1996, Ms. Ghahfarokhi and her husband obtained advanced parole travel documents from the INS and visited Iran. According to Ms. Ghahfarokhi, their arranged marriage was often strained and, once back in Iran, her husband grew increasingly angry and verbally abusive because she had become more independent that the more traditional women in Iran. She has indicated that her husband confiscated his family's identification cards, his wife's Iranian passport, and the advance parole documents for her and their elder daughter. In addition, Ms. Ghahfarokhi said that he contracted the Iranian Government to formally revoke his permission to allow his wife and daughter to leave the country. Accoding to Ms. Ghahfarokhi, her husband returned to Los Angeles a week later, intentionally abandoning his family in Iran. She said that she had no identification papers, very little cash, and nowhere to stay in Tehran. She filed a complaint with the Tehran police, whom she said located her husband's brother and required him to secure an apartment for her and the girls and provide them with money for food. In September 1996, Shahrzad turned 18 and was able to apply for an Iranian passport without her father's permission. She received her passport 2 months later and traveled by herself to the American Embassy in Frankfurt, which issued her an advance parole travel document to return to Los Angeles. According to Ms. Ghahfarokhi, it took another month for her to convince an Iranian judge to override her husband's authority and grant permission for her and her younger daughter to leave Iran. Finally, in December, Ms. Ghahfarokhi and her younger daughter left Iran, obtained advance paroles from the embassy in Frankfurt, and returned to Los Angeles. According to Ms. Ghahfarokhi, once her husband learned that his wife was back in Los Angeles, he closed their joint bank account. Shahrzad worked full-time to help pay the rent, which prevented her from starting her freshman year at UCLA. Ms. Ghahfarokhi said she believed she had no option but to file for divorce. As part of the divorce proceedings, the judge ordered her husband to pay alimony and child support, which she says he failed to do. According to Ms. Ghahfarokhi, her husband approached her a few months later to apologize for his behavior in Iran and to try to reconcile with her. He promised to support her and the girls financially and threatened to withdraw their INS application for permanent residency if they divorced. Ms. Ghahfarokhi said she felt trapped because she and her daughters were financially insecure and she and Shahrzad needed legal immigration status. She said for the sake of her daughters, she moved back in with her husband in June 1997 on the conditions that he accompany her to marital counseling, provide her with financial security by giving her some assets in her own name, and withdraw the revocation of his permission for her to travel in and out of Iran. In the months that followed, Ms. Ghahfarokhi has indicated that her husband broke each of his promises, and she separated from him in the summer of 1998. Their subsequent divorce was finalized on March 14, 1999, and the court is apparently taking steps to ensure that her ex- husband complies with the agreements on the division of property, alimony, and child support. According to Ms. Ghahfarokhi, since 1994, she and Shahrzad had been assured by the INS office in Los Angeles that their applications for adjustment of status were moving forward. The INS advised them that it routinely takes 2 to 3 years to process these applications and issue green cards. The INS issued Shahrzad an employment authorization card in March 1998. In July of that year, however, the INS denied her application for advance parole. Confused by the denial, Shahrzad went to the INS office and was shocked to learn her father had withdrawn the petitions for her and her mother on December 13, 1996. Since that time, the INS had supplied Ms. Ghahfarokhi and Shahrzad with misinformation about their status and issued work authorization cards. Over the next few months, Ms. Ghahfarokhi said she and Shahrzad met with a number of immigration lawyers, none of whom were able to offer a solution. Current immigration law allows for a battered or abused spouse of a lawful permanent resident to self-petition for legal status, but Ms. Ghahfarokhi was unaware if and when her ex-husband had become a permanent resident. Furthermore, since he had never physically abused her and the worst incidents of mistreatment had occurred in Iran, the lawyers advised her that it would be futile for her to petition on her own behalf. After Ms. Ghahfarokhi and Shahrzad asked me for assistance, my office contacted the INS, which confirmed that the women are undocumented and out of status. Further, if they were to leave the United States, they would be subject to the 10-year ban on re-entry, as required under the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. The INS also indicated that there was no administrative remedy available to Ms. Ghahfarokhi and Shahrzad and that private legislation would be necessary for them to receive relief. Subsequently, in August 1999, Ms. Ghahfarokhi's husband's attorney contacted Shahrzad to advise her that her father regretted removing her from his petition and was willing to re-instate her on the petition if the INS would allow it. Shahrzad accepted her father's offer. The INS approved her father's application on September 15th and hers on her 21st birthday on September 21st. Since that time, however, he has remained estranged from Shahrzad and her family. While Shahrzad has regained her legal status and can pursue her dreams of finishing college and attending law school, Ms. Ghahfarokhi's situation has not changed, and she and her daughters fear that she will be deported. The legislation I am introducing today would grant Ms. Ghahfarokhi permanent residency in the United States. She and her family have endured a tremendous amount uncertainty and hardship due to actions outside of their control. I request that my colleagues support this legislation.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend Mr. Obey and the Democratic members of the Labor-HHS Subcommittee. They worked hard to defend critical health programs from short-sighted Republican proposals like slash-and-burn, across-the-board cuts. But I am deeply troubled by the inclusion of a rider delaying vital reforms of our national organ allocation system. A 1-year moratorium on the Department's final rule expired last week. A revised final rule has been published. We are ready to reform organ allocations for the better. So why is there a new rider? How much longer are we going to play political games with transplant patients and their families? Every day of delay hurts patients across the country. This rider flies in the face of sound science and equity. First, we have hard data from UNOS itself documenting dramatic 200 to 300 percent transplant and survival disparities between centers across the country. These are precisely the inequities which the final rule would address. But the rider would delay the final rule. Second, we have the Institute of Medicine recommending ``that the final rule be implemented'' because broader sharing ``will result in more opportunities to transplant sicker patients without adversely affecting less sick patients.'' But the rider would delay the final rule. Finally, we have the Institute of Medicine correcting the mistaken objections that local donations and small transplant centers would do poorly under the final rule. IOM says the evidence is that neither would happen. But again, contrary to the evidence, the rider would delay the final rule. I know the opponents to organ reform will say, ``What's the harm of getting more public comment?'' The answer is simple. ``Been there, done that.'' There is no excuse for delaying the final rule any longer. The Secretary has already bent over backward to achieve a consensus. She has revised the final rule to reflect the concerns of patients, surgeons and transplant centers. The final rule already embodies years of deliberation, three separate public comment periods and input from public meetings held across the country. It embodies the consensus that organs should be shared more broadly to end unjust racial and geographical disparities in organ allocation. A delay in the final rule is a vote for the status quo: a status quo of gross racial injustice; a status quo of parochial self-interest which flies in the face of equity and the evidence; a status quo that is slowly killing patients who deserve to live, but are deprived of that right by a system that stacks the odds against them. If you want to help them, let the final rule go into effect. It's that simple.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to follow on to what our colleague from Connecticut had to say. This bill allegedly creates a safe harbor for those who administer pain medications to chronically and terminally ill patients. But I have heard from nurses, family physicians and pharmacists who say the bill will do more harm than good. They believe this legislation will chill their efforts to aggressively treat patients in pain. By raising doubts about the legality of their conduct, this bill will discourage them from easing the pain of AIDS and cancer patients across the country. I cannot support a bill that will at best further cloud an already uncertain legal environment in which doctors, nurses and pharmacists are trying to do what is best for their patients. This bill will make it harder for them to do their jobs and force them into guessing games over whether the DEA will turn a benevolent or a hostile eye towards their conduct. We should not gamble the quality of life of patients in pain upon who happens to be Attorney General. Until the bill's safe harbor is truly safe enough for care givers, I unfortunately will oppose this legislation and support the amendments to it. This legislation was also created as a political attack on Oregon's Death with Dignity Act. It seeks to override the votes of Oregon residents, but it is patients in pain who will pay the price for this legislation. Finally, H.R. 2260 will put an end to widespread and thoughtful deliberation among the States about physician-assisted suicide. I do not think the Federal government should intrude in these important debates. We should allow states like Oregon to reach decisions which reflect the fundamental beliefs of their residents. I submit the following material for the Record: Suicide Bill's Deep Flaws The House of Representatives plans to vote today on the most wrenching issue before it: a bill by Rep. Henry J. Hyde (R-Ill.) that is intended to effectively nullify a law in Oregon that allows terminally ill patients to request drugs to end their lives. However, the bill would reach far beyond the Oregon law. Medical societies say it will lead many doctors to under-medicate terminal patients to avoid scrutiny from federal drug agents. For this reason the bill is unacceptable. Hyde wrote the bill out of rightful concern that the Oregon law, which voters passed in 1994, could lead government down a slippery slope toward sanctioning the state or federal legalization of physician-assisted suicide. Hyde's bill, however, is by no means the best way to supervise and discipline doctors who stray from their proper role as healers. The bill has gained broad support in the House largely because of misleading arguments being made by its proponents. Hyde titles his bill. ``The Pain Relief Promotion Act'' and the author of its Senate counterpart, Sen. Don Nickles (R- Oklahoma), insists that ``there's no going after doctors in this.'' In fact, Hyde's legislation imposes civil penalties and a 20-year mandatory prison sentence on doctors who knowingly hasten a terminally ill patient's death. The California Medical Assn., along with physician groups representing a dozen other states, persuasively argue that the harsh sanctions would lead doctors to under-medicate patients to avoid prosecution--thus inhibiting the effective pain management the bill purports to promote. Some Hyde staffers have said they would consider reducing the bill's penalties if that would persuade President Clinton to sign it. But even if the sanctions were reduced, the bill remains marred by its requirement that the Drug Enforcement Administration define legitimate medical uses of pain medications, then regulate and enforce those subjective determinations. The DEA, basically a policing agency, by its own admission has neither the expertise nor the resources to play doctor. The best way to prevent medical abuses that drift toward euthanasia is through vigilance by state medical authorities and legislators, not by passing a federal bill with a misleading title and unenforceable aims.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the distinguished career of Santa Monica City Manager John Jalili, who is retiring after many years of dedicated public service. John Jalili has served as a truly exemplary City Manager singe 1984, leading the city to national recognition in environmental management, transit services, telecommunications, downtown revitalization, the arts, housing, human services and financial management. During his tenure, Santa Monica's financial rating has been upgraded three times and was recently given three triple A financial ratings--one of only four cities nationwide with this extraordinary financial standing. In addition, under Mr. Jalili's leadership. the Third Street Promenade stands as one of Southern California's most exciting community treasures. John Jalili has served the remarkable beach-side City of Santa Monica for a total of twenty-five years. Prior to his appointment as City Manager, he served five years as Assistant City Manager and five years as Director of Community Development. John Jalili has been honored by numerous professional organizations throughout his career. Last June, he was honored by the American Society for Public Administration, Los Angels Metropolitan Chapter with the Dykstra Award for Excellence in Government. He has been recognized for his many years of public service by the International City/County Management Association. He has also been named one of the most influential people in Santa Monica by The Los Angeles Times' ``Our Times'' newspaper and was recently honored by the Pier Restoration Corporation for his contributions to the revitalization of the Santa Monica Pier. John Jalili is known throughout City Hall as a manager who cares deeply about the quality of life of the residents of Santa Monica. He has been a creative, persistent and enthusiastic champion for the city and will be dearly missed by his colleagues and the community he has served. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating John Jalili for his long, distinguished career in public service and in wishing him and his family all the best in the future.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to pay tribute to over 100,000 individuals who have served the American community through their participation in Americorps. As this program completes its fifth year, I would like to recognize some of the outstanding work that Americorps members have been doing in the Los Angeles area. Working with Building Up Los Angeles, over 100 Americorps participants a year serve thousands of young people from kindergarten through high school at 29 sites including public schools, churches and community centers. Corps members tutor and mentor children during the school year and deliver academic support services when school is out; provide health education and organize teen pregnancy and domestic violence prevention programs; and encourage residents to have pride in their communities through neighborhood clean-up and beautification projects and public art projects. Building Up Los Angeles serves East Los Angeles, Central City South, Hollywood, Northeast Los Angeles, Pico Union, Koreatown, the San Fernando Valley, Pocoima, South Central, and Watts. Over 100 individuals with the Southern California Environmental Resources Management AmeriCorps Program have been working to protect our environment by distributing over 30,000 water-conserving devices, such as low-flow showerheads, to residents in the Compton area and other communities in the greater metropolitan basin. The program, which is administered by the Executive Partnership for Environmental Resources Training (ExPERT), will mean a savings of over 4 billion gallons of water per year over the next ten years. In Bellflower, California, approximately 65 Americorps tutors work with Project REACH (Reading Excellence Achieved with Community Help) and Project APPLE (After School Program Promoting Learning and Enrichment), which provide academic support and enrichment for 1300 students in grades K-8, with emphasis on grades three and four. This year, additional opportunities to serve through Project REACH and Project APPLE included a series of literacy programs designed to promote parent involvement; helping to organize the Special Olympics; assisting with a Community Immunization Project; planning activities for children in the performing arts; providing nutrition education; and developing initiatives that help children gain teamwork and leadership skills. Through their work, Americorps members are helping to improve neighborhoods and schools, develop communities, and protect the environment. I am pleased to have this opportunity to commend and thank those individuals who have served through the Americorps program and made such valuable contributions in the Los Angeles area.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, no group is more deserving of our support than persons with severe disabilities who want to work and be contributing members of society but who need help, particularly medical help, to be able to work. And, no public policy makes more sense than providing that support at a stage that will prevent a potentially severe disability from getting worse. Both of these things are what this bill is about. That is why I recommend that members vote for it and move this process forward into conference with the Senate. Of course, I regret that the House does not have the opportunity today to pass H.R. 1180 as it was reported out by the Committee on Commerce with unanimous bipartisan support. That legislation, which had some 247 bipartisan cosponsors in the House, provided, in my view, the most complete and necessary assurance of coverage for severely disabled individuals who need medical help to work, and provided assured support for State efforts to also help potentially severely disabled individuals from deteriorating to the point of complete disability before they can get help. It provided assurance of permanent Medicare coverage, and it provided incentives to States to extend Medicaid services and establish the infrastructure to help assure help to these individuals. This legislation falls short in several ways. It does, though, give us the opportunity to join in a conference with the Senate. It is good enough to take the steps to move this process forward, and I hope and expect that we will bring back to this House from the conference with the Senate a stronger bill, much closer in its provisions to H.R. 1180 as it was introduced. Clearly, there is much work still to be done. I commend those who have worked so hard in support of this legislation. Groups representing the disability community have worked tirelessly to bring legislation to fruition. The President, who urged action in his State of the Union message, the members on both sides of the aisle in the Senate, Senators Roth and Moynihan, Jeffords and Kennedy, in particular. In the House, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio), who introduced the original bill; the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), who has been working in this area for a great deal of time and has produced a good bill out of the Committee on Ways and Means; and so many of our colleagues in the House all deserve credit that this legislation is moving today. I urge support for the bill, but even more, I urge that we all work to better meet the promise we have made to those Americans facing or dealing with severe disabilities who want to work. They deserve the best bill we can give them. I hope when we send this legislation on to the President, it will be just that.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Jeannie I. Rosoff, President of the Alan Guttmacher Institute, who will be retiring after 31 years of service, 20 of them as AGI's president. AGI, under Jeannie's leadership, has been an invaluable partner in working to protect and promote reproductive health and freedom. During the years I served as Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Health and the Environment, and since, I have relied heavily on AGI's timely, relevant and reliable research and on its politically astute staff, all guided by Jeannie, to help advance us towards our mutual goal. Among the many programs that fell under my subcommittee's jurisdiction were Title X of the Public Health Service Act--the national family planning program--and Medicaid. As a result, the subcommittee became a focal point for legislative activity relating to reproductive health policy. During the time my tenure has overlapped with Jeannie's, we have made numerous efforts--some of them successful--to pass legislation reauthorizing Title X without debilitating amendments. We have fought off the squeal rule--a requirement that minors could only obtain contraceptive services with prior parental consent--and defended against the gag rule, which would have prohibited doctors at Title X clinics from providing women full information about their pregnancy options and prevented women from being able to give informed consent to their medical care. We have resisted repeated attempts by family planning opponents to dissolve Title X's categorical structure and to fold family planning services into a block grant to the states. We have fought against the countless legislative attacks on access to safe abortion services for indigent women, especially affecting those eligible for Medicaid. Finally, we have tried to promote a national approach to health care reform, which would have recognized comprehensive reproductive health care as an integral and legitimate part. Many of these battles, both pro-active and reactive, will certainly continue in the years to come. I intend to continue to advocate for rational and compassionate federal policies on reproductive health and rights, and I know Jeannie will too, even if it is not in her official capacity anymore. After all, Jeannie was here in Washington in 1968, spearheading the effort to gain federal recognition of the important role of the national government in ensuring access to reproductive health services for all people. She advocated especially on behalf of those least able to advocate for themselves: poor women, young women and those otherwise disadvantaged. Indeed, she may well be considered the ``mother'' of title X, as she was the primary Washington advocate agitating for its introduction in 1968 and passage in 1970. Her innumerable contributions to furthering the cause of reproductive rights have been invaluable and lasting, perhaps most of all to those young women and poor women who will never know her name. And I know they will continue in the future. For what she's done, and all she's been, I join the many, many others who say, thank you, Jeannie.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment offered by our colleague, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson). By providing adequate Graduate Medical Education funding to children's hospitals, this amendment will ensure that our Nation's premier pediatric health care institutions are capable of pursuing their research, training, and primary-care missions on a firm financial footing. For too long Congress has failed to remedy a clear inequity in the funding of Graduate Medical Education at children's hospitals. Because GME funding is contingent upon an institution's Medicare census, children's hospitals have not received adequate funding for the direct and indirect expenses of operating essential pediatric residency programs. This amendment has strong bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate. I urge my colleagues to cast a vote in favor of strengthening our children's health care by supporting this amendment. Let me conclude by saying how pleased I am that the House has reauthorized AHCPR, soon to be called the Agency for Health Research and Quality. I am proud to have been the one to have introduced this legislation creating the agency in 1989 with Senator Kennedy. Just three years ago, AHCPR underwent a near-death experience arising from partisan politics, so I am especially pleased this essential agency once again has the bipartisan support it deserves.