Henry Waxman

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, a lot of people are for States' rights in this House. Except when it comes to the question of whether tobacco companies say they do not want States' rights, they want it to be a Federal issue, and then they are willing to go along with big tobacco against the chance of people who have a legitimate lawsuit to bring their case on a class action basis. I, too, urge support for the amendment.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, if this legislation is enacted, it will provide the tobacco industry with unprecedented legal protection. It is nothing less than a back door immunity from class-action lawsuits, the Holy Grail of the tobacco industry. This bill reminds me of the attempt last Congress to give the tobacco industry a $50-billion tax break. This motion, which was slipped into a massive budget bill, was only repealed when Democrats discovered the provision and the public outcry began. This legislation, too, is a gift for the big tobacco. Today, most tobacco class action litigation occurs in State courts, but this bill would allow tobacco companies to remove these cases from the State courthouses all over the country. This is exactly what the industry has long sought to do. The industry knows that the rules for certifying and maintaining class actions are far more favorable to corporate defendants in Federal courts. They know that they have been able to defeat class action cases in Federal courts on procedural grounds. This legislation will make it virtually impossible for Americans to successfully bring class action lawsuits against the tobacco companies. It is designed to create barriers, to raise hurdles, to wear down plaintiffs so that they will give up in frustration and despair. All across America, people know about the outrageous behavior of tobacco companies. They now know how the companies target our kids, try to addict our teenagers, and have lied to the American people for 4 decades. And this House, in light of all this information, has repeatedly failed to respond to the public health crisis from cigarette smoking in this Nation. This Congress has failed to pass comprehensive tobacco control legislation. It has failed to pass even narrow tobacco control legislation. It has turned over billions of Federal dollars to the States, dollars recovered from the tobacco settlements, without insisting that even a small portion be spent to protect our kids from tobacco. Instead, this Congress has done nothing. But now it is considering passing legislation that will actually give the tobacco companies special liability protection. This legislation is a gift to the tobacco industry rendered at the expense of those who wish to hold that industry accountable. Now, some will argue and have argued that this legislation simply treats tobacco like any other business in America. But it is important to remember three facts. First, tobacco companies are selling a lethal and addictive drug. Second, the product sold by the tobacco companies are the only consumer product in America that kills when used as directed. And third, the tobacco companies have lied to and deceived the public for over 40 years. These companies have operated for decades with utter disregard to the hundreds of thousands of Americans that are killed each year. We should put public health first and not make it more difficult to hold the tobacco companies accountable for their actions. They deserve no reward. This is a public health issue. It is about fairness for the victims of tobacco. It is time for Congress to protect our children and public health, not big tobacco. I urge my colleagues to support the Jackson-Lee amendment.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of what will be offered as a motion to recommit. Title 32 of this bill contains provisions which would restructure the Department of Energy to create a new National Nuclear Security Administration. I do not question the motivations of the proponents of this proposal. They simply want to protect national security at weapons production and development facilities. However, past and recent allegations of inadequate worker and environmental protections in and around DOE labs and waste sites remind us that nuclear research poses very serious health hazards to workers and nearby residents. These concerns need to be considered when we reorganize the DOE. Unfortunately, this legislation could have the unintended consequence of subordinating the State's legitimate environment, safety, and health concerns. In fact, 46 State Attorneys General wrote House and Senate leaders urging us to oppose the legislation and note that there have been no hearings held and there has been no opportunity for the States to provide their views to the Congress. I would urge that we support the motion to recommit and change this provision so that it not stay in the final bill. Similarly, the National Governors Association wrote the House conferees on September 9, stating their concerns that this legislation could be interpreted as [quote] ``limiting existing waivers of sovereign immunity, leaving the [National Nuclear Security Administration] exempt from state environmental regulations, permits, orders, penalties, and agreements.'' [unquote] Finally, this legislation is strongly opposed by environmental groups. The Natural Resources Defense Council, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability and other groups wrote the Members of the House on September 13 opposing this bill because it weakens accountability in the Department of Energy and because the state's ability to enforce environmental laws could be severely curtailed. Mr. Speaker, despite the strengths in this legislation we need to send this legislation back to Committee and work out these provisions. If you support the rights of states, if you support protecting the environment, you should support this motion to recommit.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleague, Fred Upton, in introducing the Children's Asthma Relief Act of 1999. Asthma is one of the most significant and prevalent chronic diseases in America. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that 6.4 percent of the population, or 17.3 million Americans, report having asthma. This represents a dramatic 75 percent increase in self-reported cases from 1980 to 1994. Asthma is disproportionately hurting children. Today, it is the most common childhood chronic disease. Five million American children have asthma. And as Surgeon General David Satcher recently concluded, the United States is ``moving in the wrong direction, especially among minority children in the urban communities.'' The most devastating indicator of our Nation's lack of progress is the news that, from 1980 to 1993, the mortality rate for children and teens with asthma rose a staggering 78 percent. Just a few days ago, Dr. Philip Landrigan reported in the Journal of Asthma that higher asthma hospitalization rates are associated with children, communities of color and the poor. The potential causes for the disproportionate impact of asthma are wide ranging, from the lack of preventive care, poor housing conditions and increased exposure to indoor allergens, to sedentary lifestyles and the siting of polluting commercial facilities. Our country can and must do more to prevent and treat asthma. I am pleased to introduce the Children's Asthma Relief Act of 1999, which was originally introduced by Dick Durbin and Mike DeWine in the Senate. This legislation provides $50 million for pediatric asthma prevention and treatment programs, allowing states and local communities to target and improve the health of low-income children suffering from asthma. The Act would also increase the enrollment of these children into Medicaid and state Children's Health Insurance Programs (CHIP), such as California's Healthy Families. I am also pleased that the Act includes mobile ``breathmobiles'' among the community-based programs eligible for funding. These school- based mobile clinics were developed by the Southern California chapter of the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, in conjunction with Los Angeles County, Los Angeles Unified School District and the University of Southern California. This legislation has the support of leading child health and asthma organizations, including the American Lung Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs, the National Association of Children's Hospitals, the American Academy of Chest Physicians and the Children's Health Fund. As an honorary co-chair of Asthma Awareness Day, I urge my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring the Children's Asthma Relief Act of 1999.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues, Ron Klink, John Dingell, and Bart Stupak, in introducing the Internet Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act of 1999. While the Internet is transforming global finance and culture, it is also raising novel questions about the practices of medicine and pharmacy. There is no question that the World Wide Web and other forms of e-commerce have facilitated consumer access to health information and products. Patients clearly benefit from the rapid dissemination of reliable medical knowledge, and from novel, convenient ways of receiving health care. But unwary consumers are also increasingly exposed to fraud or quackery from anonymous, unaccountable vendors. Illegal, unsafe or unapproved drugs and dietary supplements are more widely available than ever. Hundreds of offshore and domestic ``pill mills'' dispense Viagra or Xenical to patients sight unseen--as well as to shorthair cats, the deceased, and patients with life-threatening counterindicated health conditions, as an investigation by WWMT of Kalamazoo, Michigan discovered. On July 30, the Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a hearing on online pharmacies. We heard a clear message from the testimony of Federal Trade Commission, the Food and Drug Administration, the Department of Justice, state authorities like the Texas Department of Health, and investigative media--regulators simply cannot enforce existing laws to protect consumers from illegal online pharmacies unless they know who is responsible and where they are. The Internet Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act of 1999 requires very simple disclosures from online pharmacies. Tell us your name and place of business. Tell us where your pharmacy is licensed. And tell us where your online physician, if any, is licensed. That's all. With this basic information, regulators are hamstrung. No enforcement is possible or requires unsustainable commitments of limited law enforcement resources. But enactment of and compliance with this legislation would quickly separate legitimate from illegitimate online pharmacies. Failure to comply with these minimal requirements would also help warn consumers from questionable websites. In fact, Congress and the Administration are already aggressively encouraging responsible online businesses to provide comparable disclosures regarding their privacy policies. The lack of licensure and privacy information at an online pharmacy should provide a clear warning of caveat emptor. Nor does this legislation pose a technical barrier to e-commerce. It only asks online pharmacies to provide the same licensure information as brick and mortar pharmacies do when they hang framed licenses on the wall. It is a simple matter to add a few new links to online pharmacy sites. In fact, any person with rudimentary knowledge of HTML could write up the necessary information and upload it to a website in a matter of minutes. The Internet Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act of 1999 is a simple and common-sense way to help federal and state authorities enforce existing consumer and public health protections. Responsible online pharmacies are likely already in compliance with the legislation, or could be in a matter of minutes. But illegal, unprofessional or questionable online pharmacies will be exposed to greater scrutiny and more susceptible to the enforcement of essential legal protections and State licensure requirements. I urge my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring the Internet Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act of 1999.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of Congressman Kucinich's amendment to the Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations Bill, which would require the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to fix the inefficiences in the way area codes are distributed. It would also allow states to implement their own number conservation plans if the FCC does not act in a timely manner. The current system for managing numbers is wasteful and illogical, and it has caused a completely unnecessary proliferation of new area codes in California. From 1947 to 1992, California increased the number of area codes to thirteen. It opened a fourteenth area code in 1997 and will almost double that number to twenty-six by the end of this year. If the system is left in place, forty-one area codes will be in existence in the State by 2002. The federal government must exercise leadership and relieve this tremendous burden on consumers. On May 27, 1999, the FCC adopted a notice of proposed rulemaking to consider ways to improve the efficiency of telephone numbers. Congressman Kucinich's amendment would simply ensure that the FCC make this rulemaking a priority so that meaningful reforms can be adopted as quickly as possible. I urge my colleagues to vote for this important consumer amendment.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, let me explore with the gentleman that point that he raised. The gentleman thinks that the cost burden of preparing the analysis on corporate welfare would exceed the million-dollar total amount that we would limit for this whole exercise of the evaluations. Now, we have a CBO estimate on the amount of the analysis cost for the regulatory side, and they say it is $500,000.

Mr. WAXMAN. I do dispute it. But suppose we said, for that side of the ledger, we will go to a million dollars and then we would say for the analysis on the corporate welfare side we will not put a limit on it. Would that bring the gentleman to the point of supporting this amendment?

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I strongly support this amendment. The amendment has been offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky). It is called the Taxpayer Protection and Corporate Welfare Disclosure amendment. I am honored that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) would call it the Waxman amendment, but it is not officially the Waxman amendment. I have not offered it. But I support it. This amendment does two important things. First, it protects taxpayers. As written, this bill would require OMB to prepare a cost- benefit analysis of every regulation no matter how small or ministerial. This makes no sense. We do not need analysis for the sake of analysis. We should target our analysis to those major or controversial rules that are in genuine dispute. My concern is that the cost is going to run out of control. That is why this amendment would place a cap on the amount of taxpayer funds that can be spent on that analysis of $1 million, which is twice what CBO says should be spent on this bill. Now, it is interesting how the other side has done a quick pivot. They said, oh, this bill is not going to cost much money. It is only $500,000, and it is well worth it. But then when we have challenged that figure and said, all right, we will accept double the amount of CBO, but we think it is going to cost more, let us at least be sure that we limit it, they come around and say, oh, no, no, no. We cannot limit it because it may cost more. Well, one of my colleagues said, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Either it is going to cost $500,000 or under a million or it is going to cost more. And if it is going to cost more, I think it is going to be wasteful. I tried to pursue a minute ago with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) the idea that maybe we put the cap of a million dollars simply on the regulatory analysis and not on the corporate welfare side. But then the response was back that he did not want any cap at all. Well, I want a cap for one reason. I want to protect the taxpayers from having their money wasted on analysis for no purpose. This amendment is important to do now in this bill. We were told, let us work out another piece of legislation. Let us develop a relationship. We will talk about it in committee. We will talk about it after the bill passes. Well, the leadership of our committee, which is controlled by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh), have not given us a hearing on this. Mr. McIntosh said, oh, we cannot do this. We have not had a hearing. They are not willing to call a hearing on this idea of corporate welfare. We have had no hearings on the issue. We were told when we had the mandates bill, we said, well, if you are going to mandate and require a separate vote in the House before there is a mandate, let us do that when it comes to protection of the environment. We were told, well, that is something that should be in another piece of legislation. This amendment belongs in this bill. It would add balance to the bill. The bill as written requires analysis of the costs of Federal programs to regulated entities. The amendment would require OMB to also look at the benefits of Federal programs to corporations through various types of what we would call corporate welfare. Each year the Federal Government gives out billions in subsidies to successful businesses in the form of preferential tax treatment, subsidized loans, grants, and the use of Federal land, assets and facilities at below-market costs. Many might think that a Congress that has worked so hard to take people off welfare might also try to force successful corporations off welfare as well. But just the opposite is true. Let us understand what is going on here. Last week this House, on a partisan vote, passed H.R. 2488. I consider it an irresponsible tax bill that does nothing to ensure the long-term solvency of Medicare and Social Security. What it does do is disproportionately provide its tax benefits to the wealthy, to corporations, to businesses, not to ordinary people who pay taxes. This tax bill was passed largely on party lines. It contains almost a hundred billion dollars in new direct tax breaks to businesses. Now, many might want to keep this information secret about these tax breaks. But I think the public has a right to know who we are giving our money to. The Congressional Research Service has determined that there is not a comprehensive list of subsidized industries. We do not know where all the Federal tax breaks are going to businesses. We do not know where all the grants and the other indirect subsidies are going.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel).

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the Clinton administration, which would have to enforce this proposal, has written that they oppose it. They say, ``The increased burden that this would place on the agencies would crowd out other priorities and would add little value in many cases. That is because cost-benefit analysis can be very expensive and time- consuming.'' The Environmental Defense Fund, which opposes this legislation, said that, ``The bill ignores the serious practical and methodological limitations that characterize cost-benefit analysis. In doing so, it compels agencies to waste considerable taxpayers' resources developing new information that is worse than useless.'' The Environmental Coalition of Mississippi said, ``This legislation would impose burdens on Federal agencies, undermining their ability to protect consumers' civil rights, public health, safety, and the environment.'' The Natural Resources Defense Council said, ``We strongly believe this legislation would create needless bureaucracy and divert scarce agency resources away from the efforts to carry out and enforce vital public health and environmental safeguards.'' Of course, I mentioned in my opening comments all the other environmental, public health, public interest groups that oppose this legislation. The main reason that I would urge Members to oppose it is that it is not what it has been represented to be. It is not a review of the major regulations. It covers all regulations. It wastes taxpayers' dollars in doing so. To me, to waste taxpayers' dollars in the name of trying to save taxpayers' money is a fraud on the American people. This legislation is well-intended but poorly drafted, and for that reason, I would hope that when we get to final passage of the legislation, Members would vote against it. For a proposed regulation to be promulgated by an agency, it has to be reviewed and subject to comments from anybody affected. After that, it goes to the Office of Management and Budget, where they are required by law to review it and to do a cost-benefit analysis on it before it is considered one that will be put into final form. After that, once the regulation becomes legally binding, existing riders on appropriations say that if it is major, we ought to review it for cost- benefit to see whether we are getting the benefits for the costs. This bill goes beyond all of that and requires that small, non- controversial regulations be subject to this wasteful exercise for no value after we have got all that paperwork that will be generated by the legislation. So I would hope that Members would oppose the bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would point out that the gentleman from Indiana is absolutely incorrect when he tells us that his bill would apply to just the major rules, because the text of his bill provides that there would be all the rules and paperwork in the aggregate, by agency, agency program and program component, and by major rule. If he wanted it by ``major rule'' alone, he could have said that. Further, on the bill it says, ``analysis of the impacts of Federal rules and paperwork on Federal, State,'' so on and so forth. It does not say ``major,'' it says ``impacts of Federal rules.'' The consequence of that would be, I believe, to waste an enormous amount of money. There is an argument to do a cost-benefit analysis, as has been required in the appropriations riders, on the major rules. But when we get into these minor rules, we are talking about things like noncontroversial requests to have a regulation of a drawbridge near Hackberry, Louisiana, that everybody supported, and then one would have to go through all the paperwork to do an analysis on a noncontroversial rule. On May 14, the Veterans' Administration issued a rule to adjust the level of education assistance available to veterans as required by the Benefits Act for Veterans of 1998. This rule was strictly ministerial, since the adjustment was required by statute. That rule would have to be subject to an extensive analysis with a lot of paperwork, with even peer reviewers to look at OMB's analysis after the fact. On July 23, the Department of the Treasury issued a rule to allow the U.S. Mint to use mechanical means rather than melting to destroy mutilated coins. Well, we would have to have that rule reviewed over again to try to quantify the costs and the benefits of taking these mutilated coins and melting them down as opposed to using some other way to destroy them. On July 23, the Food and Drug Administration amended its animal drug regulations to reflect the approval of a new drug to treat infections in dogs. Well, why should that have to go through a long, extensive review of the costs and benefits? Now, it is not just the costs and benefits of that regulation, in and of itself; but it is costs and benefits to the economy, to wages, to productivity and growth. So we are, in effect, mandating an enormous amount of burden, a lot of busywork, wasting taxpayers' dollars to comply with this legislation that is so overly broad in the way it has been drafted. Now, there may be groups that support it because they were misinformed, as are the Members being misinformed today about the legislation. They may think it was only the major rules, but in fact, it goes far beyond that. Mr. Chairman, could I just inquire as to the amount of time on each side.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, we know if the Hoeffel-Kucinich-Visclosky amendment were adopted it would cure this problem by requiring each year the Office of Management and Budget to identify Federal subsidies and disclose the costs and benefits of these subsidies. Mr. Chairman, if the intent of this bill is to provide more information to the American people about the relationship between regulated entities and the Federal Government, this amendment will very much help accomplish that goal. There is no reason the American people should not be informed about how their tax dollars are being used to subsidize corporations. I have heard this argument, what if the person or entity getting a subsidy is an individual business, therefore, you are going to presumably invade their privacy or make it too difficult to understand where the money by way of corporate subsidies actually goes? Well, that is a sham. These corporate entities can be stated in the aggregate. They are topics. It is not a doctor's office. It is how much doctors get. It is not a subsidy to one corporation. It can be corporations in a particular enterprise. And in that way we will know how much of a benefit is being placed on these corporations when we ask them to clean up the environment and protect public health, when we ask them to come in and make sure their drugs are safe and effective and to get approved by the FDA. We also ought to know, on the other hand, whether we give them subsidies that help them deal with that burden, as we do so often to corporations that take advantage of special tax breaks and special grants and special preferential treatments in the use of Federal assets.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, we have had these kinds of debates in the past on so- called regulatory reform proposals, and what we usually get in the course of these debates are a lot of anecdotes. They are the kinds of anecdotes that get all of us very angry. It usually involves some well- meaning citizen who is the victim of some terrible regulation, or an overzealous agency. After we hear these gut-wrenching stories, we are asked to conclude that the regulatory system is broken and needs to be reformed. The only problem with these stories is that they are just that, stories. After the debate, we go back and research some of these anecdotes, as we have done in the past, and they may include a kernel of truth, but the facts and conclusions end up being wrong. For example, in the 104th Congress, we were told about the Safe Drinking Water Act requiring the City of Columbus to test its drinking water for pesticide used only to grow pineapples. That, of course, is ridiculous. Everyone knows one does not grow pineapples in Columbus, Ohio. But when we looked into that story, which was told on the House floor, it turned out that the pesticide DBCP is considered a probable human carcinogen, and it was widely used on over 40 crops until it was banned in 1979. Since then, it was found in the groundwater in 24 States, and 19 States have reported levels above the Federal standard. I remember also hearing from the gentleman from Indiana about OSHA killing the tooth fairy by requiring extracted baby teeth be disposed of as hazardous waste rather than allowing the parents to take the teeth home. Well, that sounds ridiculous. But when we checked it out, it turned out there was a regulation issued by the Bush administration that required dental workers to take precautions when handling extracted teeth because they were contaminated with blood. But a gloved dentist was allowed to put the tooth in a clean container and give the tooth to the parents for the tooth fairy. There are other examples. But now, during the debate on this bill, we heard a new anecdote. Last Thursday, when we were debating the rule for this bill, and I believe that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) repeated this, we heard the story in the debate today of Dave Pechan who got caught in a turf fight over wetlands regulations between the National Resources Conservation Service and the Army Corps of Engineers. According to our colleague, the Conservation Service gave Mr. Pechan approval to convert his land into a vineyard, but then the Army Corps of Engineers told them he will be subjected to civil and criminal penalties if he continues to work his land. He is now in limbo while the Corps conducts its own wetlands evaluation of his property. That is a quote from our colleague. Well, we called the Army Corps of Engineers on Friday. What we found out is that, while the Corps disagreed with the Conservation Service's wetlands determination, it deferred to their decision. The Corps sent a letter to Mr. Pechan in December of 1997 informing him that their investigation was effectively closed. So Mr. Pechan is not being subjected to civil or criminal penalties, and he is not in limbo. Mr. Chairman, we may disagree on the role of the Federal Government or the need for Federal regulations to protect health, safety, and the environment; but we ought to keep the debate on the facts. The facts are this bill is not as has been represented, only dealing with major regulations. It applies to all regulations. The facts are this bill will cost a lot of money. We have heard cited the CBO's estimate of $500,000, but I believe it is going to be more. We will see, if it is only $500,000, whether the other side will agree to an amendment that will say, okay, no more than a million dollars can be spent on this enterprise. I would like to submit for the Record, and I am going to with this statement, comparisons of other anecdotes and facts that we found for the various cases that have been raised on the House floor. Let us not let these anecdotes, which make all of us angry if we thought they were true, be used to get us to make policy changes in our law that will, as some of the groups that are opposed to this legislation indicated, provide for excessive waste of taxpayers' dollars, to develop a needless bureaucracy, divert scarce agency resources away from the efforts to carry out and enforce vital public health and environmental safeguards. I would urge opposition to this legislation. With these comments, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise simply to say that we have reviewed these amendments. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), as the Ranking Democrat on the subcommittee, and our staff has looked them over, and we would support the en bloc amendments.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might consume. It is very peculiar to hear the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) say we have OMB to do this analysis so we can find out the cost benefit of regulations. Well, OMB already does that, and the gentleman said the OMB said it costs $700 billion a year to comply with regulations. That is not accurate. OMB said, after doing their analysis, that it costs $230 billion not $700 billion; and that is the costs. But the benefits for regulations OMB said ranged, because we cannot know precisely how to quantify it, but we know there are certain enormous benefits that come from regulations to protect the environment, to protect public health and safety; they say the benefits of a $230 billion cost is anywhere from $260 billion in benefits to $3.5 trillion. Now the gentleman wants OMB to do a report, but he ought to be accurate in telling the Members what OMB is already saying on this very subject. Let me tell my colleagues what some others are saying about this bill. The United Auto Workers say the UAW submits that this bill would only serve to further delay the promulgation of public health and safety protections by mandating wasteful analysis and diverting limited agency resources. The United Steelworkers say that they oppose this bill because it would lengthen and complicate the already cumbersome regulatory process of agencies such as OSHA which address issues affecting worker safety and health. The Consumers Union opposes this bill, and they say that the substitution of different words or details does not obviate the need this bill would create for the Executive Branch to expend the very substantial resources in an attempt to quantify what they may well find is unquantifiable and most certainly would be meaningless in an aggregate form. Now do we want to take taxpayers' hard-earned money and waste it, because that is what this bill would do. It would have OMB spend, I believe, without a limit, millions of dollars on an analysis on non- major regulations. We are not talking about major regulations, but regulations that are non-major, often noncontroversial, usually noncontroversial, regulations that everyone supports, and then have to go through a lot of paperwork. Well, maybe it is a win for those who have their own agenda to say that if maybe they are lucky, OMB came out with a report showing that the costs out-did the benefits. They can say, well, there is a wasteful regulation, but even if they can never come up with a way of showing that some of these regulations are not effective, they could just busy all the people in the government doing these reports that serve no useful purpose. Let us subject this bill to a cost-benefit analysis. We do not know what the full costs will be of this bill to make OMB go through all these regulations and review. But we do know that the costs are going to be extraordinary and the benefits are going to be minuscule. We ought not to enact legislation that does not serve a cost-benefit purpose, we certainly ought not to have regulations that do not have benefits outweighing the costs. And I think that the way to make sure that we have regulations that are effective and cost effective is to do our job as congressional custodians through oversight and not just simply pass laws that can do a great deal of harm. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in opposition to H.R. 1074, the so-called Regulatory Right-to- Know Act of 1999. This legislation would require the Office of Management and Budget to prepare an extensive annual report on the aggregate costs and benefits of Federal regulations, by agency, by agency program and by program component. For the past 2 years, Congress has enacted appropriations riders that require OMB to tabulate the costs and benefits of major Federal regulations. Some observers have found this annual cost-benefit report to be helpful. They argue that it shows the health, environmental and other benefits of Federal regulations and how those benefits far outweigh their costs. For example, the 1998 Report to Congress on the Costs and Benefits of Federal Regulations concluded that those benefits far exceeded the costs by anywhere from $30 billion to $3.3 trillion. Well, that is a good report supporting the benefits of these regulations and how they outweigh the costs of the regulations. That is what we want to know. But other observers have questioned the utility of these annual reports. According to the OMB, the Office of Management and Budget, aggregating costs and benefits of regulations are, they say, of little value to policymakers because they offer little guidance on how to improve the efficiency, effectiveness or soundness of the existing body of regulations. Why? Why would that be the case? They say, because the information available includes enormous data gaps, accurate data is sparse and agreed-upon methods for estimating costs and benefits are lacking. Furthermore, critics like Professor Lisa Heinzerling of the Georgetown University Law Center say that the difficulty in quantifying benefits is likely to cause skewed results. Comparing aggregate, quantifiable costs, such as the dollar cost to comply with regulations, is easier to do than to quantify the really basically unquantifiable benefits, such as lives saved or a cleaner and healthier environment, and so to compare the two may mislead the public about the net benefits of regulation. Well, whatever the merits of the current annual report that is being prepared by OMB, this bill is seriously flawed. First of all, this bill does not codify the idea that we will have annual reports. Instead, it dramatically expands these requirements in ways that will substantially increase the burdens on OMB, raise the costs to the taxpayers, and produce little significant new information. In short, if H.R. 1074 were itself subject to a cost-benefit analysis, it would flunk. One of the major problems in this bill is its scope. Currently, OMB prepares an annual analysis of the costs and benefits of ``major'' regulations with an annual economic impact of over $100 million. This makes some sense. There are relatively few major regulations. Out of the 5,000 regulations issued in the Federal Register each year, only about 50 have major economic effects. The limitation to major regulations allows OMB to focus its analysis on the most important and costly regulations. Moreover, agencies that promulgate these major regulations have to prepare cost-benefit regulations as part of the rulemaking process, so this gives OMB a database to draw from. But this bill, H.R. 1074, is not limited to major regulations. It requires a cost-benefit analysis of all 5,000 regulations issued each year. According to this bill, the report must include, quote, an estimate of the total annual costs and benefits of Federal regulatory programs, including rules and paperwork; one, in the aggregate; two, by agency, agency program, and program component; and, three, by major rule. This would therefore require agencies to perform cost-benefit analysis for all rules in order to provide OMB with the information it needs to compile the aggregate report. This simply does not make sense. OMB testified that this bill would require OMB and the agencies to compile detailed data that they do not now have, and undertake analyses that they do not now conduct, using scarce staff and contract resources. That is because there is no such information available for these 5,000 nonmajor rules. The administration says that the increased burden that this would place on the agencies would crowd out other priorities and would add little value. We have heard similar comments from unions, consumer groups and environmental organizations. Groups opposed to H.R. 1074 include the AFL-CIO, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Public Citizen, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club and dozens of other national and local public interest groups. Before the committee markup in May, we reviewed the Federal Register to see what types of rules would be subject to this new cost-benefit analysis. One example was a temporary rule issued by the Coast Guard governing the operation of a drawbridge near Hackberry, Louisiana. This regulation was completely noncontroversial. In fact, it was actually requested by the State in order for the State transportation department to make some necessary repairs. Yet under H.R. 1074, OMB now needs to conduct an analysis of the economic costs and benefits of this regulation, including its direct and indirect effects on economic growth, prices, wages, small business and productivity. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of rules issued each year that fall into this category. Is this how we want to spend the taxpayers' dollars? Not only would this bill be wasteful, it would provide an incomplete picture of the costs and benefits of government programs by omitting corporate welfare from the report of aggregate costs and benefits to the taxpayers. According to an investigation by ``Time'' magazine, the Federal Government gives out $125 billion a year in corporate welfare. It seems to me that it is only logical that any OMB report should include all costs and benefits to the economy, including the costs to the taxpayers and benefits to businesses from corporate welfare. Later today, several of our colleagues will introduce an amendment to address these concerns. The Hoeffel-Kucinich-Visclosky Taxpayer Protection and Corporate Welfare Disclosure Amendment would require OMB to report on the costs and benefits of corporate welfare. It would also limit the amount of money that could be spent on these analyses to $1 million, double what the CBO estimated for the annual cost to implement the bill, while we are giving twice as much as CBO says this bill is going to cost, because I do not think their cost estimate is going to be correct. And there ought to be some ceiling on the amount of money that hard- working taxpayers are going to pay to do this analysis that may not even be of any value. We ought not to be spending certainly more than $1 million on this project which seems to be the personal agenda of some of those who are pushing the legislation. While this amendment does not address all my concerns with H.R. 1074, it will go a long way towards protecting the taxpayer by limiting the cost of the bill and giving a more accurate picture of the costs and benefits of government programs. Mr. Chairman, I would urge at the appropriate time that Members support the amendment. The Hoeffel-Kucinich-Visclosky Taxpayer Protection and Corporate Welfare disclosure amendment is a commonsense amendment that would at least improve a deeply flawed bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with Congresswoman Morella in introducing the ``NIH Office of Autoimmune Diseases Act of 1999.'' This legislation is intended to enhance the Federal government's research on autoimmune diseases and disorders. Most importantly, the Act highlights the urgency of treating autoimmune diseases as a priority women's health issue. Many of our colleagues are familiar with diseases such as multiple sclerosis, lupus, rheumatoid arthritis and chronic fatigue syndrome. But what is not well recognized is how these and dozens of other diseases are linked by autoimmunity. As the NIH explains, ``If a person has an autoimmune disease, the immune system mistakenly attacks itself, targeting the cells, tissues and organs of a person's own body.'' Today, we have identified at least eighty autoimmune diseases which lead to death, severe disability, and vitiate the quality of life. They inflict a tremendous toll on families and our communities. Collectively, autoimmune diseases affect five percent of the population, or more than 13.5 million Americans, causing untold mortality and morbidity in this country, as well as billions in health care expenditures and lost productivity every year. What is most striking is the disproportionate impact of these diseases on women. Three quarters of those afflicted with an autoimmune disease are women. Multiple sclerosis is twice as common in women compared to men. And the best available research suggests that autoimmunity may be the cause of 50 to 60 percent of unexplained cases of infertility and is also a major cause of miscarriages. Compounding the uncertainty surrounding the causation of many of these diseases and the need for effective therapies is a persistent lack of information and understanding about autoimmune diseases. The American Autoimmune Related Diseases Association recently found that two-thirds of all women suffering from autoimmune diseases had been labeled ``chronic complainers'' before being correctly diagnosed. No woman should have to experience such insensitivity and lack of awareness when seeking care for a life-threatening illness. The Federal government is pursuing a broad agenda of research and education on autoimmune diseases. For several years, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has supported a multi-institute research program on the mechanisms of immunotherapy for autoimmune disease. There is an NIH research program for autoimmunity centers of excellence. And NIH institutes and the Office of Women's Health Research are focusing research funding on the genetic susceptibility to autoimmune diseases, as well as the role of environmental and infectious agents. But it is clear that more can be done. The NIH recently established an autoimmune diseases coordinating committee, to help facilitate the innovative research being conducted on autoimmune diseases. Congresswoman Morella played a leadership role in this regard. The Congress has also dramatically increased NIH funding over the past few years, with the expectation that autoimmune disease research would benefit from this trend. Our bill would take these promising developments a step farther. Progress on finding cures and treatments for autoimmune diseases would be expedited by a permanent office at the NIH dedicated to developing a consensus research agenda, as well as promoting cooperation and coordination of ongoing research. Such an office could serve as an advisor to the Director of NIH and the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and act as a high-level liaison to the many important autoimmune disease patient groups. The bill is endorsed and strongly supported by organizations including the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, American Autoimmune Related Diseases Association, National Coalition of Autoimmune Disease Patient Groups, Lupus Foundation of America, CFIDS Association of America, Sjogren's Syndrome Foundation, Crohn's and Colitis Foundation of America, Myositis Association of America, Wegener's Granulomatosis Support Group, Myasthenia Gravis Foundation of America, Coalition of Patient Advocates for Skin Disease Research, the National Alopecia Areata Foundation and the National Pemphigus Foundation. Mr. Speaker, we urge our colleagues to join us in cosponsoring ``NIH Office of Autoimmune Diseases Act of 1999.''

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, last month few people knew that the United States had a Women's World Cup Soccer team but today there is talk of starting a professional women's soccer league. The women's world cup tournament, a one month long tournament that features the sixteen strongest teams in the world, has created a sort of ``soccer frenzy.'' All of the credit for starting this new craze should be given to the women of the United States World Cup team. Girls, boys, men and women alike tuned in to watch the games of this tournament. People who had never before this tournament watched a soccer game in its entirety are now caught up in the craze. This past Saturday these women played their hearts out to beat the National team of China. They never gave up and they worked--literally for Michelle Akers--to the point of exhaustion. They are heroes for millions of people not only because of their raw talent, but also because of their dedication and inspirational attitudes. They played for themselves, for the sport, and for everyone who supported them throughout the tournament. I don't need to prove to you how likable these women are, how enjoyable they are to watch, or how successful they have been. Their numbers are the proof. An overwhelming 90,000 fans attended their final game at the Rose Bowl in Pasadena this past Saturday and that 90,000 does not even come close to including the millions of people who tuned in to watch from around the world. The women's national team, coached by Tony Dicicco, worked together in a way that should be inspiring for us all. Not only did they work together but they played together and celebrated together. They have displayed an amazing dedication to their fellow teammates and to their country that has made us all proud. I fully support the passage of this resolution that is meant to honor these women for their hard work and dedication.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Madam Chairman, the proponents of this bill say they have increased privacy protection for health records, but in fact, every independent expert that has reviewed the legislation has reached exactly the opposite conclusion. The medical record provisions in H.R. 10 are opposed by physician organizations like the American Medical Association and the American Psychiatric Association. They are opposed by nurses' organizations, like the American Nurses' Association. They are opposed by patients groups, like the National Association of People with AIDS and the Consortium for Citizens With Disabilities, and they are opposed by privacy experts, like the Consumer Coalition for Health Privacy and the ACLU. Why have they reached that conclusion, when the other side on this issue say they have put something in the bill to protect medical privacy? They have a provision saying an organization cannot give out information without the consent or the direction of the customer, but then they have this huge exception. They can, however, give it without ever asking the customer to insurance companies, who then can keep a whole database on a lot of people's medical records. They can give it to people participating in research projects. It does not say it is a scientific research project. Anybody could say they have a research project and therefore they get the medical data, and these groups can then turn around and sell it. There is no restriction on them whatsoever from further disseminating our personal medical records. This idea that we have to give our consent is not very convincing when an insurance company can say to us that in order to get insurance, we have to sign a waiver that will allow them to do whatever they want with our medical records, or we go without insurance. I feel that this provision is a step backwards. The proponents say they are following a democratic process. In fact, they snuck the medical records provision into the legislation like a midnight prowler, to use the words of the Los Angeles Times. There have been no hearings on the implications of what we are doing. In fact, we are not even allowed to offer amendments to this provision. Under the rule, the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit), who has been working on health privacy issues for 10 years, was even denied a motion to strike. It would be better to strike all the medical provisions, privacy provisions that are in this bill out because they do such a disservice to the idea that we are protecting people's privacy. In 1949 George Orwell wrote a chilling novel called 1984 about a society that denied its citizens privacy. It is 15 years later than Mr. Orwell predicted, but today 1984 is becoming a reality. Doublespeak reigns in this House, and Big Brother in the form of all-knowing financial conglomerates is being brought to life. I urge my colleagues to vote against the bill because of this provision alone.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, this bill was supposed to be about financial services, but it actually contains the most severe invasion of Americans' right to medical privacy ever considered by the Congress. As the L.A. Times wrote in an editorial today, ``not a shred of protections are left. Health insurers can peddle patients' privacy with little or no restraint.'' Under this bill, health insurers can sell genetic records to credit bureaus, life insurance companies, without the consent or even the knowledge of the patient. I have a high regard for the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske). I do not think he realizes what he has opened the door to in terms of the invasion of medical privacy. That is a different issue than privacy of financial records. But this medical privacy provision allows information to be made available and to be sold without us ever knowing about it, about our most intimate medical problems. I would rather have nothing on medical privacy than a provision which takes us a big step backwards.

Mr. WAXMAN

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

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler). (Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland). (Mr. STRICKLAND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)