Henry Waxman

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this Resolution honoring Joe DiMaggio. Joe DiMaggio was more than just a terrific ballplayer--he was special to Americans across our country because of his professionalism, his work ethic, and his remarkable grace. We honor Joe DiMaggio for that, and we honor him as well for the particular importance he had for millions of Italian-Americans. It's easy to forget today how ingrained prejudices were sixty year ago. In 1939, Life magazine printed what it believed was a favorable profile of Joe DiMaggio. In the article, however, it noted that ``Instead of olive oil or smelly bear grease, DiMaggio keeps his hair slick with water. He never reeks of garlic and prefers chicken chow mein to spaghetti.'' For a generation of Italian-Americans facing daily bigotry, Joe DiMaggio was a hero whose quiet dignity and excellence shattered stereotypes and eloquently rebutted ignorance. Casey Stengel once modestly and astutely said that ``I know I'm a better manager when Joe DiMaggio's in center field.'' Mr. Speaker, I would only add to that that we have been a better country because Joe DiMaggio was an American.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 540, the Nursing Home Residents Protection Amendments of 1999. This legislation provides new and strengthened authority to protect frail elderly and disabled nursing home residents who rely on the Medicaid program for their support. This legislation was developed in response to an action by the Vencor nursing home chain to withdraw from the Medicaid program and evict residents in the facility whose care was paid for by Medicaid. The bill was developed by our colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis), with strong bipartisan support, including that of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health and Environment of the Committee on Commerce. Further, it has the strong support of the administration, consumer groups, and others. Yet, during the consideration of this bill, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) raised concerns about the unintended consequences that he thought might be possible. He feared States will take advantage of the requirement that nursing homes must continue to care for Medicaid patients once they are a resident in the facility and would reduce their Medicaid payments to those facilities. I think it is important to separate the issues here. First, there is no question that the residents in the facilities deserve protection, as the bill would give them. What a State may do with its reimbursement rates should not be used as an excuse to put the resident patients at risk. But the issue of adequate payment to Medicaid nursing homes so that they can provide quality care to their residents is an important issue. And let me remind my colleagues we used to have a provision in the Medicaid law, the so-called Boren Amendment, that required States to pay nursing homes reasonable and adequate rates, rates that would allow an efficiently run facility to provide the required care. That provision was repealed in the Balanced Budget Act. I believe that was a mistake. I think the concerns some of my colleagues have raised, that State payments might be inadequate to support what we are requiring in this bill, is a strong argument to return to consideration of the Boren Amendment. It should be part of the Medicaid law. So I urge my colleagues to support this bill that is before us. I urge that we also return to a reconsideration of the Boren Amendment at some time in the future, and the assurance that Medicaid payments are reasonable and adequate to provide the quality care we all support for the frail elderly and disabled people who are in nursing homes. I urge support for the bill and appreciate this opportunity to make these comments for the Record.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor King Hussein ibn Talal al Hashem, a courageous leader and close U.S. alley who lent his stature as the Middle East's longest-serving leader to the service of peace. A wondrous achievement for any man, but even greater because it was accomplished after decades of struggle and at great risk to his standing among his neighbors and his own people. His death from cancer lost to Jordan a beloved king who brought stability in the face of great obstacles and lost to the world a man who in his final years worked tirelessly to leave behind a legacy of peace in his region. When King Hussein was crowned in 1953, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan was a collection of Bedouin tribes--today it stands as a model of stability in the region with democratic freedoms unknown to most of the Arab world. His 46 year reign was an astonishing feat of survival. King Hussein dodged at least five assassination attempts, numerous coups, the loss of a significant portion of his land, and, at critical points during his reign, miscalculations that sparked the ire of his Arab neighbors and the Western world. Yet he emerged in his later years as a wise voice for moderation in the region, using his wealth of experience and status as elder statesman to prod Israel and the Palestinians towards the ultimate goal of peace: a process which he had seen as necessary for the survival of his country and the region as a whole. King Hussein had come to realize that his country's survival was inextricably linked to the fate of the State of Israel. His years of secret talks with Israeli leaders facilitated what would eventually become the first ``warm'' peace between Israel and an Arab country. I had the opportunity to participate in the White House signing of the 1994 peace agreement between Jordan and Israel, and was struck by King Hussein's courage in signing the agreement in the face of opposition by his Arab allies. The warmth of the handshake between the King and Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin illustrated the genuine friendship that had grown between these two great leaders, and launched a relationship that should serve as a model for relations between Israel and her other Arab neighbors. Since 1994, King Hussein spent enormous amounts of energy to broaden the peace by bringing a settlement to the Israel-Palestinian peace process. During the Hebron negotiations in 1997 and again at Wye Plantation in 1998, the King's presence made the difference between success and failure. While undergoing cancer treatment last fall, the King put his health at risk by traveling from the Mayo Clinic to the Wye Plantation at the request of President Clinton, who knew that only the King could inject that strong dose of reality necessary to remind the negotiators of their purpose. Cajoling, and sometimes scolding, the participants, he urged them to look beyond their petty differences and accept the compromises that would bring a brighter future to the region. King Hussein will be remembered throughout the world as a man of honor, a man of wisdom, and a man of peace. I would like to express my sincere condolences to the family of King Hussein and the people of Jordan--your loss will be felt worldwide. I would also like to reaffirm our commitment to close relations between the U.S. and Jordan, and send my best wishes to King Abdullah, who has the strong support of Congress and the American people as he embarks on the leadership of his country and builds on the legacy of his father.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kucinich amendment. I want to clarify what the disagreements are on this legislation. No one disagrees with the idea, as far as I know, that we ought to reduce the amount of paperwork which burdens small and large businesses. Unnecessary paperwork is inexcusable, and I think a great deal of credit goes to Vice President Gore in his efforts to reinvent government, to try to avoid the requirements that so much paperwork be required from different businesses. The second thing we do not disagree about is that if a small businessman or woman inadvertently does not do what is required by way of paperwork regulations, we do not want them to be fined or penalized in any way when they do it inadvertently. The Kucinich amendment would make sure that if it is an inadvertent violation, there would be amnesty for the person violating the law. The difference that we have is that the Kucinich amendment makes clear that if there is a danger to the public safety, if there is danger to the environment or health, and the violation is intentional, that we do not preclude the agency from giving the sanction to fit the offense. The bill before us assumes that any time a violation occurs, it is innocent, but that is just not true. There are people who do wrong things on purpose, and if we tell them, if they do something wrong on purpose, they do not have to worry about being sanctioned, we are suggesting that they ought to go ahead and violate the requirements of the paperwork regulations. Now, that means that the businessperson who is trying to comply with the regulations is going to be put at a disadvantage with somebody who is not doing what they ought to do to meet the requirements of the law. Now, this is not some insignificant matter, because there are far- reaching consequences for our Nation's health, environmental, consumer protection laws, that the Kucinich amendment would preserve the integrity of these laws while at the same time providing relief to first-time violators in appropriate circumstances. Not all circumstances, but appropriate ones. And the bill before us would give them a pass for all circumstances. We have received a number of letters from our colleagues who are experts in certain areas. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns) is one of Congress's leading fighters against lead poisoning of children, and he described how H.R. 391 would undermine lead hazard disclosure, putting thousands of children at risk. We ought not to give that kind of encouragement for people who violate the law and put children at risk. Our colleague from the State of Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) is one of the cochairs of the Congressional Fire Fighters Caucus, and he has pointed out that H.R. 391 would endanger the lives of fire fighters because this bill gives a first-time free pass to businesses that fail to report the storage of hazardous chemicals on site. This is different than somebody who does not change a light bulb. No one wants to penalize that person. But not to report hazardous chemicals that are stored on site which could hurt fire fighters is just not reasonable. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) is one of the leading congressional experts on the Securities and Exchange Commission, and he tells us that the bill undermines the SEC's ability to protect investors from fraud. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) is a champion of the right-to-know laws which require polluters to report the level of their toxic emissions, and he says these laws would be unenforceable under this legislation. The amendment that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) offers, he claims would solve the problem, but it does not. We still have the goal of many reporting requirements, which is to prevent the public from being placed in danger, undermined. It defeats the purpose of these reporting requirements, to prevent enforcement until after the public is already in danger. That is locking the barn door after the horse has already gone. We do not have adequate exceptions to protect the public health. Expert after expert has considered this argument and rejected it. Let me say who some of these experts are.

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. And I want to express to the previous speaker that I very much agree with his sentiments. I understand what he is saying. We want to help small business people who get tangled up in regulatory bureaucracy and find themselves a victim from those who are overzealous. But let us step back and look at the bill before us, not what we would like the bill to be. Because if the bill did what the gentleman said, I would support it, and I hope we can get the bill to reflect that goal. The first problem we have is that we are voting on a bill that never had a hearing. It never had a hearing in a subcommittee, there was never a hearing in the full committee, so the groups and individuals that wanted to give input into this legislation, particularly those who would be affected, do not know why they were not heard, and we have not been able to get their reactions on the record in the usual legislative process. This bill is called the Small Business Paperwork Reduction Act. We all want to reduce paperwork, but it is a misnomer. I think a better name for this bill, in the way it is framed now, is the Lawbreakers Immunity Act. It is not about small businesses, since it applies to gun manufacturers with a thousand employees, oil refineries with 1500 workers, and drinking water utilities with millions in annual revenues. And it is not just a bill about paperwork. What is at stake here is the public's right to know about toxic emissions, an employee's right to know about workplace dangers, and a senior's right to know about safe conditions in nursing homes. Make no mistake about it, the scope of this bill is far-reaching, with huge effects that deserve a full hearing and deliberation. Over 57 groups have expressed their opposition to this bill. Few issues have attracted such a diverse range of voices in opposition. Groups ranging from the State attorneys general, the labor organizations, the National Breast Cancer Coalition, consumer organizations, religious groups, fire fighters, environmentalists, handgun control advocates, they all oppose this bill. Now, why are all these groups concerned? They were not given a chance to come before a hearing and express their concern. This bill gives first-time violators of important health, environment and consumer protection laws a free pass, making enforcement of our laws more difficult, if not impossible. By taking a blanket waiver approach, the bill creates a disincentive to comply with the law. Now, let me give my colleagues some examples of this, and it is important to realize that there are serious consequences to this bill. The National Council of Senior Citizens wrote: ``We believe that passage of this legislation will present serious problems in regard to the protection of older persons receiving care in nursing homes. Because inspections of nursing homes and their records are often infrequent, passage of H.R. 391 could cause deliberate violations of required procedures.'' Let me elaborate a little on that, because I was the author of the Federal law on nursing home standards. Nursing homes have to submit paperwork to show that they are monitoring drug use by their patients; that they are monitoring the treatment and quality of care given to their patients. If they do not submit the paperwork because they know that in submitting that paperwork they will be found to be poorly treating the patients in that nursing home, and therefore they intentionally do not file that paperwork, knowing that nothing will happen to them for violating law, they will be off scot-free. But the consequences will be a lot of people will be overdrugged in a nursing home and ignored and left to just sit there. The fire fighters, the International Association of Fire Chiefs joined five other fire service organizations in a letter expressing concern over, and I quote, ``Provisions of this legislation that would permit or facilitate the relaxing of regulations designed to warn fire fighters and other emergency personnel of the presence of hazardous materials. The bill raises serious safety issues for fire fighters.'' Well, we do not want to do that, and we do not have to do that to give small business people some relief from inadvertent errors in their paperwork obligations. The Sierra Club, the National Resources Defense Council, they wrote on behalf of their membership stating, and I quote, ``Numerous crucial health and environmental programs, including those for tracking hazardous materials, assuring food safety, reporting on hazardous emissions, reporting on drinking water contamination, and giving notice of chemical accidents rely on crucial reporting requirements that would be undercut by this legislation.'' The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) a few minutes ago told us an anecdote that none of us had ever heard before, about a dermatologist who had to change his light bulb and was fined as a result of that. Well, we will have to check out whether that was true or not. And the reason we have to check it out is that that gentleman told us last time we had this bill up that OSHA had a regulation, that is the Occupational Health and Safety Administration, which would require that all baby teeth be disposed of as hazardous waste materials rather than given back to the parents. Well, we were all in dismay over such a regulation. The problem is there was no such regulation. The New York Times investigated this claim and found that it was completely false. In 1991, under the Bush administration, OSHA issued regulations to protect health workers from blood-borne pathogens. One rule required dental workers to handle extracted teeth safely because they are contaminated with blood. So contrary to this claim, the regulation allowed a gloved dentist or employee to take the tooth, place it in a container, and give it to the parents. I want to cite the New York Times, February 28, 1995. Too often on the floor of this House Members state things that they just made up, or maybe they heard it from somebody, but it turns out under further examination to be absolutely false. It may fit in with their theory, but if it is not true, it is not very helpful. This bill has not had hearings. It has not had the airing that it should in the legislative process. It is astounding that not one of these groups had an opportunity to express their views to our committee. This is a bad bill. It makes intentional violations of vital laws unenforceable. We should not want that.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, the Department of Justice, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Attorneys General of California and New York, local district attorneys, State enforcement officials all reject this. Now, why State enforcement officials? Because this bill is so far- reaching that it gives a free pass to violate local laws or laws that are enforced at the State level. My colleagues do not have to take my word for it, just listen to what the experts are saying. It is amazing to me that Mr. McIntosh did not try to work out with us on the Democratic side a way to resolve this issue, because what we would all like to see is a bill that would say, if there is an inadvertent violation of some paperwork requirement, that person, that business person should not be fined or sanctioned. But if there is an intentional violation, if there is a violation that affects public health and safety, that person should not get a free pass. That person should not be told in advance, ``Go ahead and violate this paperwork requirement, we are going to turn the other way and not even pay attention to it.'' No one should defend that position. Now, we hear from the other side of the aisle that they have addressed it, but they have not worked with us to make sure that they have addressed it adequately, and therefore, the Department of Justice, the State attorneys general, these people who work in the field, who were not given a chance to come in and even testify are now writing to us and saying, support the Kucinich amendment and have this problem dealt with adequately, so that we have some discretion with the agency to look at the violation and see if it is appropriate to sanction them under the circumstances at hand. In fact, what we are being told is not to trust the agency to look at the facts of the case and deal with it in a reasonable manner. We are saying, trust all small business people, no matter what. I think that puts in jeopardy the reasons why we have legitimate requirements for paperwork to be filed. I go back to nursing homes. We do not know if a patient is being abused in a nursing home unless we can look at some of the paperwork that is required of the nursing home when they inspect their own premises. If they do not have to file that paperwork because they know that even if they are by law supposed to and they are going to be left off the hook, it is an incentive for them to lower their standards. Support the Kucinich amendment.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I was surprised when this amendment was narrowly defeated last year because it would take the same philosophy for unfunded mandates, for economic considerations, and apply it to other equally important values. I want to emphasize again this amendment would not prohibit Congress from repealing or amending any environmental law. It places no new burdens on any business, State, individual, or federal agency. It would simply bring an informed debate and accountability to the process. Mr. Chairman, there is no question the American people want Congress to protect public health and environment. The environment and our Nation's public health is just as important to them as unfunded mandates. Over the years, we have seen that, when Congress legislates in a deliberate, collegial, and bipartisan fashion, we are able to enact public health and environmental protections that work well and are supported by both environmental groups and by business. I ask all of my colleagues to support this amendment and guarantee that Congress does not unknowingly jeopardize America's public health and the environment. I urge support for this legislation.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, this bill that we are considering today would set the procedural hurdles in the way of legislation that would mandate requirements on private businesses, what are called unfunded mandates. The underlying rationale of the legislation is that the Congress ought to be sure of all the impacts of legislation before a vote is taken, especially if we are going to have an unfunded mandate. The amendment that I am offering in no way changes the underlying legislation. My amendment does not weaken H.R. 350 in any way. I want to repeat that so that there is no confusion about what we are doing in offering what we call the defense of the environment amendment. We do not change any of the procedural provisions in the Condit-Portman bill. We do not affect how the bill would work for any new private-sector mandates. Instead, what my amendment would do would merely extend the same protections to other issues that are of great importance to the American people, requirements that had been established under existing law to protect the public health, safety, and the environment. This amendment is based on legislation that is called the Defense of the Environment Act, which is supported by every major environmental group and the AFL-CIO and other outside organizations as well. Because if we are going to consider repealing current environmental or public health protections or safety protections or worker protections, we ought to do so with full information and adequate consideration. It is the same rationale for the underlying bill. It is just common sense. It addresses a serious problem with the way environmental policy has been determined over the last 4 years. During the last two Congresses, when we looked at environmental legislation, we did not get a chance to consider it separately, to debate it on its merits, and then to vote on anti-environmental riders. What we had were provisions attached to appropriations bills or other must-pass pieces of legislation. What resulted often was absolutely no debate or consideration by the committee of jurisdiction. What also happened was that we did not get a chance to have a debate or vote on the House floor. Just as the authors of this bill do not want us to pass mandates on the private sector without a chance for consideration and a vote, we feel the same procedural assurances ought to be given to those who are concerned about repealing existing laws that affect environment, safety, and public health. Let me talk about some of the examples that have happened in the last couple of Congresses. We had anti-environmental riders that increased clear-cut logging in our national forests. We had riders that would have crippled protection of the endangered species and stall the Superfund program. We had provisions that would have hindered our ability to ensure the groundwater protection from contamination from old nuclear facilities. We have blocked the regulation of radioactive contaminants in drinking water and delayed our efforts to clean up air pollution in the national parks. The defense of the environment amendment would not prohibit the House from taking any of these steps or passing any of these measures, but it would guarantee that we at least have the option of having an informed debate and a separate vote on these proposals. It would at least give us an opportunity to protect our clean air laws, our clean water laws, our toxic waste laws, and all of our laws that protect health and safety of workers and our families.

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

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for that clarification of what he are trying to accomplish.

Mr. WAXMAN. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I am very interested in the comments of the previous speaker, and I wanted to pursue his thinking on this matter. As I understand the bill before us, it would provide for an opportunity to debate the question of whether there is a mandate and then have a separate vote on whether we are going to proceed with the issue that would result in the mandate. Is it the gentleman's concern that forcing a vote on whether to proceed on the mandate would stop the debate on the underlying, let's say, environmental provision that might require private businesses to do something?

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the concern that is being expressed that we do not want to clutter up the legislative process with votes, although I will be offering an amendment shortly, if there is an opportunity for it, that would require another vote if we are going to have an amendment that would weaken existing environmental legislation, so we can give the focus of attention on that issue and understand the consequences and then have a separate vote on it. I understand what is being said on this question of whether the debate would be cut off. I do not think that was the intention, but I have heard what the gentleman from Maryland has to say and what the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) has to say, and I am really concerned that we end up in that kind of situation where we do not get to the debate of the underlying proposal. It need not work that way. But I think the Boehlert amendment does prevent us from getting into that kind of a situation. I will support the amendment for that reason. I think if it allows a greater debate, that is so important to this body.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I want to take this opportunity to discuss an amendment that I will offer to this legislation next week. The Mandates Information Act that is under consideration would create a new procedural hurdle for Congress when attempting to place any new mandates on the private sector. These new mandates could be increasing the minimum wage, controlling pollution, ensuring workers' safety. These are proposals that would be subject to this procedural step before we enact any of these ideas. Unfortunately, this legislation is not balanced. It creates procedural protections against new requirements on business, but offers no protections against repealing existing requirements that serve important and popular public interest purposes. I will offer an amendment which will give the public interest the same procedural protections that are given to industry. I will offer the defense of the environment amendment, which is based on H.R. 525, the Defense of the Environment Act. I introduced H.R. 525 yesterday with the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Dick Gephardt), the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), and 80 of our colleagues. The Defense of the Environment Act is supported by every major environmental group. The defense of the environment amendment will simply ensure that the Mandates Information Act offers the same procedural protections for removing requirements that protect our environment, the public health or safety, as for consideration of new mandates on the private sector. This is common sense, and it addresses not just a theoretical problem but a very real, serious problem with the way the Congress has set environmental policy over the last 4 years. During the last two Congresses, the democratic process has been circumvented through the use of anti-environmental riders. These riders have been attached to must-pass legislation, and have often been enacted without any serious debate or a separate vote. There are many examples of these anti-environmental riders. From blocking the regulation of radioactive contaminants in drinking water to delaying our efforts to clean up air pollution in the national parks, riders have touched upon every aspect of the environment. The Defense of the Environment Amendment will ensure that we can have appropriate debate and a separate vote on these anti-environmental riders. Let me give an example of why this legislation should be balanced with the addition of my amendment. If this legislation were enacted tomorrow, there would be a new procedural protection to prevent Congress from requiring polluters to tell the public more about pollutants they are emitting into their communities if that were being offered sometime in legislation. However, there would be no protections against repealing the existing right to know requirements. I can understand why business would support this approach, but it is not fair to the American people. My amendment is designed to help prevent these stealth attacks on our environmental laws. It would not offer protection against every environmental rider, but it is a sensible first step. It would protect our clean air laws, our clean water laws, our toxic waste laws. This amendment would not prohibit Congress from repealing or amending any environmental law. It places no new burdens on business, State, or individual or Federal agency. It would simply bring an informed debate and accountability to the process. Mr. Chairman, there is no question that the American people want Congress to protect public health and the environment. The environment is just as important as an unfunded mandate, whether it be an unfunded mandate on another government agency or an unfunded mandate on private business. These issues all ought to have the same focus of attention that will allow us a chance to debate the issue and have a separate vote. Over the years, we have seen when Congress legislates in a deliberate, collegial, bipartisan fashion, we are able to enact public health and environmental protections that work well and are supported by both environmental groups and by business. I ask all my colleagues to support this amendment and guarantee that Congress does not unknowingly jeopardize America's public health and environment. They will not do so unknowingly if we at least can have a chance to debate the issue and have a separate vote before we proceed to do something that is going to be anti-environmental without a chance to give a focus of attention on it. That is no different than the opportunity to give a spotlight on an issue that is an unfunded mandate on American business. I urge support of this amendment when it comes up next week when the bill is considered.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize an outstanding citizen of Los Angeles, Peter Braun, who for the past 10 years has led a very extraordinary organization, the Los Angeles Alzheimer's Association. Under Peter's creative leadership, the Association is helping more than 150,000 families in Los Angeles who are dealing with the awful challenge of Alzheimer's disease and other dementias. The Association provides direct support and assistance, information, and referral to services for people with the disease and the families who care for them. It has also been instrumental in shaping the health and long term care system to which families turn for help, through training and direct advocacy with care providers and with local and state agencies and legislative bodies. The following are just a few examples of the work the Los Angeles Alzheimer's Association is doing to shape the delivery of health care to people with dementia. With initial support from the federal Health Resources and Services Administration and the California Department of Health, the Association has created national models of culturally relevant community services for Latino families in South Central Los Angeles and for African- American families in Inglewood. Working again with the California Department of Health, the staff of the Association has led development of clinical practice guidelines for Alzheimer care that are being used by physicians throughout the state. In partnership with Kaiser Permanente in Southern California, the Association is developing a model for managed care for persons with dementia--through clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis and management, physician and staff training, and case management. Peter has built the Los Angeles program to become the largest of more than 200 chapters in the national network of the Alzheimer's Association. But his commitment to the organization goes beyond his own chapter. He has been a key collaborator with his colleagues in other chapters in helping to shape the direction of the entire Alzheimer movement in this country. And just last week, the President of the Alzheimer's Association appointed Peter to serve on the management committee of the national organization. On Friday, the people of Los Angeles will celebrate the tenth anniversary of Peter Braun's service to the Alzheimer's Association. It is a personal pleasure for me to join in recognizing his leadership, his commitment, and his dedication to his organization, to his community, to the Alzheimer movement, but most particularly, to the families who turn to the Association for help.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, my Republican colleagues have made history in the four years since they took control of the House. But it's not a history future will view with pride. Over and over again, our Republican colleagues have called for the ``rule of law.'' Let me suggest that if the President has committed a crime, that he be tried in a court of law after he leaves office. There, even he will have the protections of the law. Here in the House of Representatives he is not getting the rule of law--but the rule of politics. President Clinton has been subjected to an unprecedented and deliberate strategy to use taxpayer funded investigations to ``get him.'' Millions have been spent, and a series of reckless charges have been investigated to death and turned out to have no basis in fact. The reality is that many of my Republican colleagues intensely dislike the President. Some have never been able to accept the fact that the American people have twice elected him. Some have never been able to accept him as their President. Indeed, one of my distinguished Republican colleagues, Majority Leader Dick Armey, once derisively referred to the President as ``your President'' during a debate with a Democratic House member. Another Republican member called Mr. Clinton an ``illegitimate President'' as early as January 1995. That intensity of feeling has transformed itself into a deliberate strategy to use taxpayer-funded investigations to cripple the President. Over three years ago, just after the Republicans took control of Congress, the Speaker's top political strategist wrote a memo urging Republicans to ``get the Clinton Administration under special prosecutor problems.'' Two years ago, the House of Republican leadership directed Committee chairmen to compile ``examples of dishonesty or ethical lapses in the Clinton Administration.'' The result has been an extraordinary series of personal attacks on the President. I won't recount every accusation, but I do want to mention some of the most notable. President Clinton and his Administration has been accused of misusing the IRS and the FBI to punish political enemies. The President and his Administration have been accused of compiling an enemies list and of intentionally obtaining secret FBI files for those on the list. The President and his Administration have been accused of doctoring White House video tapes that Congress subpoenaed. The President and his Administration have been accused of selling cemetery plots at Arlington Cemetery in exchange for campaign contributions. The President and the First Lady have been accused of stealing government property. The president has even been accused of killing one of his closest friends, Vince Foster. Most serious of all, the President has been accused of committing treason. That word, treason, was tossed around on this floor earlier this year. It is without question the most serious charge one American can make against another American. All of these charges have been investigated, and all turned out to have no basis in fact. And while the accusations were trumpeted in press headlines around the country, their debunking at best made the back pages. One of our colleagues even introduced an impeachment resolution last year, months before anyone had heard of the President's affair with Ms. Lewinsky, and it was based on all these ridiculous, unsubstantiated, and false accusations This has been an impeachment in search of an impeachable offense. Durign these past four years, my Republican colleagues have taken all the tools of traditional congressional investigations and twisted them into something no American can be proud of. They have misused and abused the subpoena process. They have misused and abused the deposition process. They have misused and abused the power to grant immunity. They have misused and abused the power to hold others in contempt of Congress. We have trivialized these important powers and set horrifying precedents for future congressional investigations. In years to come, almost anything imaginable will be justified--by whichever party is in control--by pointing to the actions of the past four years. It's remarkable and remarkably sad that so much harm could be done in so little time. I suppose today's impeachment is the natural evolution of all those prior excesses. Every abuse of the past four years has built to this day. As one of my Republican colleagues said in the Washington Post on December 15, ``impeachment is icing on the cake.'' The impeachment resolution is the ultimate indulgence of the House Republican leadership. It puts their anger, their hatred of the President, their political interests, ahead of the national interest. Despite the Republicans' premeditated and constant attack on him, today's vote would have been impossible had the President not acted irresponsibly, if not recklessly, in his personal and sexual misconduct. Feeling trapped, he lied. He acted dishonorably and dishonestly. The Republicans were desperate to find a crime, and the President, unfortunately, provided them with irresistible ammunition. For that President Clinton deserves censure and he deserves to be prosecuted if he violated the law. His crimes, if any, do not amount to impeachable offenses envisioned by the Constitution. He does not deserve--and our country does not deserve--this impeachment resolution. What has been presented to us by the Judiciary Committee do not amount to impeachable offenses. I call for the rule of law and the supremacy of the Constitution. I urge all my colleagues to oppose these articles of impeachment.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, over and over again our Republican colleagues have called for the rule of law. Let me suggest that if the President has committed a crime, let him be tried in a court of law. There even he will have the protections of the law. Here in this House he is not getting the rule of law but the rule of politics. This President has been subjected to an unprecedented and deliberate strategy to use taxpayers' funded money to investigate him in order to get him impeached. Millions of dollars have been spent, many reckless charges were investigated, investigated to death, and they were found to have no basis in fact. As a matter of fact, a resolution of impeachment was introduced before anybody had ever heard of President Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky. There has been an impeachment in search of an impeachable offense. What has been presented to us today do not amount to impeachable offenses. I call for the rule of law and the supremacy of the Constitution.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the NIH Office of Autoimmune Diseases Act of 1998. This bill is intended to promote discussion of how we can enhance the Federal government's response to the severe impact of autoimmune diseases and disorders on our country. Most importantly, it is intended to highlight the urgency of treating autoimmune diseases as a priority women's health issue. Today, there are at least eighty recognized autoimmune diseases, ranging from multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis and lupus to juvenile-onset diabetes, scleroderma, Graves's disease and thyroiditis. All of these diseases and disorders are characterized by autoimmunity, the terrible case of the body's immune system rebelling against itself. Frequently inherited, these diseases and disorders lead to death or severe disability, cause a painful loss in patients' quality of life, and inflict a tremendous toll on their families and communities. Collectively, autoimmune diseases cause untold mortality and morbidity in this country, as well as billions in health care expenditures and lost productivity every year. Yet last December, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Women's Health Susan Wood observed that, ``Despite their devastating human and economic toll, autoimmune diseases are among the least investigated, most difficult to diagnose, and physically and emotionally painful diseases that face Americans today.'' This is a terrible and unnecessary situation. Even worse is that the disproportionate impact of these diseases on women is even less well recognized. Few people in our country know that seventy-five percent of those afflicted with an autoimmune disease are women. I doubt many of my colleagues are aware that multiple sclerosis is twice as common in women compared to men. These statistics do not adequately reflect how important autoimmune diseases are to women. 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. But these numbers only hint at the pain and doubt experienced by women and their families as a result of autoimmune diseases. The suffering of patients from the clinical manifestations of these diseases and disorders can be exacerbated by a lack of information and understanding. A recent study by the American Autoimmune Related Diseases Association found that two-thirds of all women suffering from autoimmune diseases has been labeled ``chronic complainers'' before being correctly diagnosed. No woman should have to experience such insensitivity and lack of awareness when seeking care for serious diseases. The Federal government is pursuing an 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 last September, several NIH institutes and the Office of Women's Health Research initiated a research program focusing on genetic susceptibility to autoimmune diseases. 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. My colleague, Congresswoman Morella, has 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. This bill would take these promising developments a step farther. Progress on finding cures and treatments for autoimmune diseases would surely 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, such as the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, American Autoimmune Related Diseases Association, the Arthritis Foundation, Juvenile Diabetes Foundation and the National Organizations for Rare Disorders. I am introducing this legislation with the intention of fostering discussion. I look forward to working with the NIH, the Administration and patient groups on it. Upon its introduction in the next Congress, I urge my colleagues to support it as a step forward in the search for cures for autoimmune diseases.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I will not object, but I wanted to take this time to commend my colleagues, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) for the work in crafting a bipartisan bill. I applaud their devotion to ensuring that Federal debts are fully paid. This bill is a revised version of H.R. 4243, and we will support this bill and urge our colleagues to do so. I want to commend my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn), chairman of the Subcommittee on Government Management for his recent efforts to craft a bipartisan bill. I applaud his devotion to ensuring that federal debts are fully paid. This bill, H.R. 4857, is a revised version of H.R. 4243. Chairman Horn has been receptive to comments and suggestions raised by the Administration and our colleagues in the other body. In light of their recommendations, he has revised the bill and improved it in a variety of ways. I support this bill and urge my colleagues to do so also. H.R. 4857 is intended to increase collections on delinquent nontax debt owed to the federal government; improve federal payment systems and travel management; and decrease high value nontax debt totaling over $1 million. This legislation will provide the federal government with new tools to collect nontax debt over $1 million. The bill would strengthen the federal government's ability to recover substantial amounts of taxpayer money. It also enhances the ability of the Department of Justice to pursue civil actions seeking monetary damages, fines, or penalties. More specifically, this legislation will provide additional tools for the government to improve government operations: First, the bill contains general management improvements. It will ensure that Congress continues to receive agency audited financial statements and repeals obsolete provisions of the law. The bill will improve travel management by requiring agencies to use, to the maximum extent possible, travel management centers and electronic reservation and payment systems in order to improve efficiency and economy. It will also insure that federal employees are not inappropriately charged taxes on travel expense. Second, the bill makes improvement to the Federal Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996. It clarifies that Social Security payments can be offset for the collection of child support debt owed to states. These debts, since they are being enforced by a State, were ineligible for offset, as State debts were specifically excluded from Social Security offset. With this correction, states will be able to move forward with implementation of this provision. Third, I am pleased that Representative Horn has again agreed to add a provision that the minority requested that authorizes the Department of Justice to obtain the assistance of outside counsel in the Department's pursuit of monetary claims, including civil fines or penalties. Due to the growing complexity of litigation, many lawsuits now require highly specialized expertise. These cases range from intricate antitrust cases involving software companies to labyrinthine fraud cases involving home health care or other types of complex consumer fraud. Outside firms have acquired substantial expertise that the Department of Justice may lack. To address this concern, Section 201 of this bill amends section 3718 of Title 31 to allow the Department of Justice to retain outside counsel to assist the Department in litigation seeking monetary damages, fines, or penalties. Fourth, this bill will authorize agencies to sell nontax debts owed to the U.S. in order to reduce delinquent nontax debts held by agencies. This will allow federal agencies to obtain the maximum value for loans and debt assets. In addition, this legislation will provide agencies with increased leverage to collect debt from certain self- employed professionals. Under the bill, agencies will have the authority to deny federal permits or licenses to delinquent federal debtors. Fifth, this legislation will dictate greater disclosure of high value nontax debts by requiring annual reports to Congress. It will also authorize agencies to seize the assets of delinquent nontax debtors who owe the U.S. more than $1 million. And finally, this legislation improves financial management by authorizing agencies to accept electronic payments to satisfy a nontax debt owed to the agency. It is our goal in passing this legislation to improve the efficiency of our government and to protect the financial interest of the taxpayers by collecting what is rightfully owed. This bill makes constructive changes to improve the performance of the federal government. It makes good sense and is good government. I urge your support for this measure. (Mr. WAXMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, fourteen years ago, Congress enacted the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, better known as the Waxman-Hatch Act. As the Chair of the Subcommittee on Health and Environment, I was the law's primary sponsor in the House, and my friend Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah was the primary sponsor in the other body. I am very proud of the Act. Its success has truly exceeded my expectations. The Act balanced the interests of the brandname drug industry, which gained patent term extensions to restore time expended obtaining FDA approval, and the generic drug industry, which obtained clear and fair statutory standards for the timely approval of their products. As a result, generic drugs have saved American consumers and the Federal government billions of dollars. Today, America has a uniquely thriving and competitive generic drug industry. At the same time, the brandname drug industry has prospered like never before, posting record profits while tripling its research and development spending in the past ten years. One of the most significant changes under the 1984 law was the creation of an exemption from patent infringement for tests and other activities conducted for the purposes of obtaining FDA approval. The exemption was created to overturn the ruling in Roche versus Bolar, which held that uses of a patented drug to prepare a generic drug application to the FDA were infringing. Since its enactment, the courts have interpreted this exemption as applying to prescription drugs, biologic drugs, medical devices, as well as food and color additives. Recently, a number of parties have raised issues they wish the Congress to consider regarding the Act and its operation. Among these is the impact of applying the Bolar exemption to the biotechnology industry. This is an issue which has evoked strong views on both sides. Certainly, Congress should understand all of the implications for the industry's competitiveness, medical research, drug prices and consumer access. Producing breakthrough medicines and enhancing our global competitiveness, the biotechnology industry is of critical importance to American consumers. Developing these products--and making them available and affordable to American consumers--is crucial. The Congress should be fully aware of the current impact of the Waxman-Hatch Act. Its contributions have been significant. Examination of any suggested changes should be undertaken with care and a complete understanding of the consequences for all of the important interests served by the Act. After all, the reason the Act has succeeded in helping consumers is because it strikes a careful balance between promoting innovation and ensuring that consumers have timely access to affordable medicines. With the Congress due to adjourn shortly, I think it is important to understand fully the issues which have been raised concerning implementation of the Waxman-Hatch Act. I look forward to reviewing the positions of all interested parties. Congress must ensure that the Act's careful balance of interests is maintained by observing the Hippocratic admonition, ``First, do no harm.''

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I want to commend my colleagues the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn), chairman of the Subcommittee on Government Management, and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) for their recent efforts to craft a bipartisan bill, and I also want to acknowledge the work done by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich). I applaud their devotion to assuring that Federal debts are fully paid. Chairman Horn has been receptive to the administration's concerns with this bill. The administration is not opposed. I am hopeful that this bill will provide the government with helpful new options to recover substantial amounts of Federal taxpayer money. I support H.R. 4243. This bill is intended to increase collections on delinquent debt owed to the Federal Government, improve federal payment systems and travel management and decrease high value debt totaling over $1 million. This legislation will provide the Federal Government with new tools to collect debt over a million dollars. The bill would strengthen the Federal government's ability to recover substantial amounts of taxpayer money. It also enhances the ability of the Department of Justice to pursue civil actions seeking monetary damages, fines or penalties. We urge all Members to support this bill. It is a noncontroversial piece of legislation. More specifically, this legislation will provide additional tools for the government to improve government operations: First, the bill contains general management improvements. It will ensure that Congress continues to receive agency audited financial statements and repeals obsolete provisions of the law. The bill will improve travel management by requiring agencies to use, to the maximum extent possible, travel management centers and electronic reservation and payment systems in order to improve efficiency and economy. Second, the bill makes improvement to the Federal Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996. It corrects an error which has prevented Social Security payments from being offset for the collection of child support. These debts, since they are being enforced by a State, were ineligible for offset, as State debts were specifically excluded from Social Security offset. With this correction, States will be able to move forward with implementation of this provision. Third, I am pleased that Representative Horn has agreed to add a provision that the minority requested that authorizes the Department of Justice to obtain the assistance of outside counsel in the Department's pursuit of monetary claims, including civil fines or penalties. Due to the growing complexity of litigation, many lawsuits now require highly specialized expertise. These cases range from intricate antitrust cases involving software companies to labyrinthine fraud cases involving home health care or other types of complex consumer fraud. Outside firms have acquired substantial expertise that the Department of Justice may lack. To address this concern, section 201 of this bill amends section 3718 of title 31 to allow the Department of Justice to retain outside counsel to assist the Department in litigation seeking monetary damages, fines, or penalties. Fourth, this bill will authorize agencies to sell nontax debts owed to the United States in order to reduce delinquent debts held by agencies. This will allow Federal agencies to obtain the maximum value for loans and debt assets. In addition, this legislation will provide agencies with increased leverage to collect debt from certain self- employed professionals. Under the bill, agencies will have the authority to deny Federal permits or licenses to delinquent Federal debtors. Fifth, this legislation will dictate greater disclosure of high value nontax debts by requiring annual reports to Congress. It will also authorize agencies to seize the asserts of delinquent debtors who owe the United States more than $1 million. And finally, this legislation improves financial management by authorizing agencies to accept electronic payments to satisfy a debt owed to the agency. It is our goal in passing this legislation to improve the efficiency of our Government and to protect the financial interest of the taxpayers by collecting what is rightfully owed. This bill makes constructive changes to improve the performance of the Federal Government. It makes good sense and is good government. I urge your support for this measure. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. WAXMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)