Henry Waxman

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson]. (Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], the ranking member of the Committee on Commerce. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1627 and want to commend Chairmen Bliley and Roberts, subcommittee Chairman Bilirakis, and John Dingell for their efforts to resolve this issue and bring this important legislation to the floor. In the last 2 weeks, we have worked together to resolve a problem that has frustrated Congress for nearly two decades. And in reaching this agreement, we have found a way to reconcile fundamentally different positions into a strong bill that will benefit all Americans. The starting point for this compromise is the repeal of the Delaney Clause and the creation of a single health-based standard that will apply to all foods. This reform gives industry needed regulatory flexibility while providing important health protections to American families. In passing this legislation we are ensuring that pesticides will present no danger to our children. H.R. 1627 requires the Environmental Protection Agency--when establishing safety tolerances that apply to all Americans--to consider any special impacts a pesticide may have on infants and children and ensure that any aggregate exposure to a pesticide chemical residue present a reasonable certainty of no harm to them. This provision cannot be waived for eligible pesticide chemical residues. H.R. 1627 also establishes an estrogen screening program and a right- to-know initiative that will provide vital information to consumers. I am pleased to announce to my colleagues that H.R. 1627 is supported by a number of environmental and public health groups, including: the American Preventative Medical Association; the American Public Health Association; Center for Science in the Public Interest; Citizen Action; Citizen Health; Consumers Union; the Environmental Defense Fund; the Environmental Working Group; the National Audobon Society; the National PTA; the National Wildlife Federation; the National Resources Defense Council; Physicians for Social Responsibility; Public Voice; and World Wildlife Fund. This is not a bill of winners and losers. It is a bill of winners. Industry wins because it receives regulatory relief and health and environmental public interest groups win because important health safeguards are guaranteed. Most importantly, H.R. 1627 is a major victory for common sense and for all Americans. This compromise is only possible because a lot of hard work has been done by congressional staff and administration officials. And I want to commend both industry and environmental groups for their willingness to put aside long-held positions and find common ground in this proposal. Mr. Speaker, I do want to mention that while this bill is originating in the House, there has been an enormous amount of work that has been done on this legislation in the other body, and I particularly want to single out the work that has been done by Senators Kennedy, Leahy, Lugar, and Kassebaum. They have struggled with this issue and we hope they will now, after we pass this bill, join with us in putting the finishing touches on the work for which they have endeavored for so many years. Our colleagues deserve commendation, particularly Chairman Bliley, Mr. Bilirakis, Mr. Dingell and others who will be addressing us. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Condit], the ranking member of the subcommittee. (Mr. CONDIT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Absolutely.

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Republican welfare bill. This legislation masquerades as reform, but it is not that. It is instead a giant step back into poverty for millions of American children. But it is more. This bill will have a devastating impact on the health care system in many urban areas and in many States in this Nation because of its mean-spirited and shortsighted provisions to deny Medicaid funds for necessary medical care for legal immigrants. Whatever the view Members may have as to whether we should provide cash support to legal immigrants who end up in need of assistance, there can be no justification to deny health care services to persons who are legally in this country. Cutting Medicaid funds is not going to keep people from getting sick. It is not going to keep them from needing health care services. All this bill will accomplish is to keep them from going for care when they need it and causing them to be sicker and more costly cases when the situation becomes so bad they end up in an emergency room. Local hospitals and local governments are going to be left holding the bag for these costs. The sad fact is, they cannot afford it. There should not be a Member from California in this House that supports this policy. It will have devastating consequences for Los Angeles, and it will have devastating consequences for the State of California. The $12 billion reduction in Medicaid expenditures resulting from these provisions is fully one-fifth of the expenditures my Republican colleagues were trying to cut from Medicaid with their block grant proposal. Trying to achieve a big chunk of those so-called savings through the back door of the welfare bill by taking away any access to Medicaid for legal immigrants is wrong. It will hurt urban hospitals. It will hurt innocent people. It is the wrong thing to do.

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

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3396, the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, and ask my colleagues to reject this mean-spirited legislation. The proponents of H.R. 3396 would have us believe that this legislation is necessary to save the institution of marriage. The real purpose of H.R. 3396 is to create a wedge issue for Republicans for the upcoming elections. In a shameless attempt to divide the American public, the Republican Party is espousing official bigotry. It is promoting discrimination against individuals who seek the same responsibilities and opportunities other Americans seek when they form a lifelong union with someone they love. It is scapegoating a segment of our society to fan the flames of intolerance and prejudice. And it is doing this to try to improve its standings in the polls. Discrimination against people who are gay and committed to one another does nothing to defend marriage or to strengthen family values. It does, however, continue to deny them legal rights that married couples simply take for granted--inclusion in a spouse's health insurance plan, pension and tax benefits, the ability to participate in medical decisions, and the right to visit a dying spouse in the hospital. Our Nation's families deserve better from their leaders than this cynical effort to raise fears and create divisions for political gain. They need leaders who will recognize the true needs of families and who are willing to work for adequate healthcare, access to educational opportunities, a decent wage, and a livable environment. Let's work together on the real challenges we face as a nation. Let's not allow our Republican leaders to create scapegoats to distract the public's attention from the failure of this Congress to address issues the American public cares about. I urge my colleagues to stand up to bigotry and discrimination. I urge you to vote against this mean-spirited legislation.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Frank amendment and in opposition to this legislation.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, if teenagers are denied confidential and affordable access to family planning services, they will be at a greater risk for sexually transmitted diseases, for unintended pregnancies and more likely to get an abortion. Many teenagers are not able to speak to their parents about these issues, and many parents do not act responsibly and will not give their consent. These factors should not be a barrier to an adolescent coming in and getting needed counseling and contraceptive information and contraceptive services and other health care services that are provided in these title X clinic. I urge opposition to the Istook amendment.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Lowey amendment which would strike the bans on this research that could lead to lifesaving results. Early-stage embryo research is vital as it has the potential to address treatment and prevention of infertility, people who want children, want to bring in life into this world. It could lead to cures for childhood cancer and genetic disorders such as cystic fibrosis, muscular dystrophy, mental retardation and Tay-Sachs. It could lead to the reduction, if not the elimination, of miscarriages. Why should the Government not conduct this research? The reason the Government should conduct the research is that they have these embryos that are otherwise going to be discarded. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to understand this is very important research. The National Institutes of Health, through the universities and other research centers throughout the country, is the leading premier research activity in this Nation. We should not stop the research that could lead to these important breakthroughs. What this amendment does not involve: It does not involve genetic engineering. It does not involve the sale or creation of embryos. It does not involve the examination or use of human embryos developing inside the woman. Rather, the embryos to be used in this research are to be donated by couples who have undergone various medical treatments, including in vitro fertilization that helped them conceive. After the medical procedures are complete, these embryos are otherwise just going to be discarded. In other words, the embryos used in this type of research would be less than 14 days old. The amendment would not permit the creation of embryos solely for research purposes. I support the amendment. I rise today in support of Congresswoman Lowey's amendment, which would strike the ban on early-stage-embryo research. Essentially, this amendment would permit life saving research on embryos, which would otherwise be discarded. Early-stage-embryo research is vital, as it has the potential to address the treatment and prevention of infertility, childhood cancer, and genetic disorders, such as cystic fibrosis, muscular dystrophy, mental retardation, and Tay-Sachs disease. It may help lead to the reduction and prevention of miscarriages. Furthermore, early-stage- embryo research could help us learn more about what causes birth defects and ultimately teach us how to prevent them. And, it could also improve the success of bone marrow transplants, repair spinal cord injuries, and help develop improved methods of contraception. However, also important, is what this amendment does not involve. It does not involve genetic engineering; it does not involve the sale or creation of embryos; and it does not involve the examination or use of human embryos developing inside the woman. Rather, the embryos to be used in this research would be donated by couples, who have undergone various medical treatments, including in vitro fertilization, that help them conceive. After the medical procedures are complete, these embryos are usually discarded. In other words, the embryos used in this type of research would be less than fourteen days old. They would consist only of a few cells with no developed organs and no sense of feeling. This amendment would not permit the creation of embryos solely for the purposes of medical research. Instead, it would allow this crucial research to be performed on already existing embryos that would ultimately be discarded. For all of these reasons, prohibiting early-stage embryo research will hold the health of millions of Americans hostage to anti-choice politics, and as a result would severely restrict the quality of our scientific and medical research. This amendment would greatly benefit people with cancer and leukemia, people who are unable to have children, children with birth defects, people who suffer from or carry genetic diseases, and people with spinal cord injuries and nervous system disorders, and I urge my colleagues to vote in support of it.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, on July 1, 1996, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC]--the Nation's prevention agency--will celebrate its 50th anniversary. This represents 50 years of commitment to improvement in the public health, a commitment that has been carried out by a dedicated and highly professional work force. Over the years, I have been a strong supporter of this unique Federal agency. Along with my colleagues, I have helped authorize and expand CDC prevention programs which have made and will continue to make significant improvements in the public's health. These programs include: immunization, HIV prevention, tuberculosis control, lead-paint poisoning prevention, and the Breast and Cervical Cancer Mortality Prevention Program, to name a few. Throughout that period, and indeed its entire history, CDC's scientists and epidemiologists have responded to countless challenges domestically and around the world, including Legionnaire's disease, environmental and workplace hazards, smallpox, plague, and Ebola. In recognition of this 50-year milestone, I am pleased to share with my colleagues a message from CDC's distinguished Director, Dr. David Satcher. I heartily commend the CDC for its accomplishments and look forward to its achievements in the next 50 years. Remarks by Dr. David Satcher, Director, at the 50th Anniversary of the

Mr. WAXMAN

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

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill. Mr. Speaker, I am astounded to hear myself say I am speaking in opposition to this bill. I have here in my hand a statement in support of the bill, a statement that commends, appropriately, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis], and the members of our committee for the very long period of negotiations entered into in good faith to resolve the differences on the Safe Drinking Water Act. This was a negotiation that literally took place over a matter of years and the result of our negotiations was a bill supported by everyone, the water systems, the State and local governments, the agricultural interests, and the environmentalists. Everybody was satisfied that the legislation that was reported unanimously out of the Committee on Commerce was a good bill and this legislation appeared to be heading to conference and to the President's desk as one of the rare accomplishments of this legislative session. The unfortunate fact is I cannot make that statement that ordinarily is made on a suspension bill, urging all our colleagues to support it. The reason I cannot make that statement is that this bill was changed last night. An important part of the drinking water legislation is a revolving fund that would help drinking water systems throughout this country to able to draw on money so that they could upgrade their systems, so that we could be assured that those water systems will be delivering water that meets the standard to protect the public health. In the bill now before us, as a result of negotiations behind closed doors that did not involve any of us on the Democratic side, money has been earmarked for certain projects to be paid for out of this revolving fund; $375 million is earmarked for specific areas, specific water projects. Now, that means there is less money for the rest of the country. It means that the revolving fund will not be used for the highest priorities, where we need to clean those systems up or allow the systems to be modernized so that the water can be cleaned. This bill should not be coming to the floor under those kinds of circumstances. We all believe, and the reason we entered the negotiations is we wanted to accomplish something through a bipartisan agreement. In accomplishing a bipartisan agreement, there has to be understandings and the bill was delicately balanced. It certainly was not the bill I wanted completely. It was not the bill the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] or the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis] wanted in its entirety, but we balanced out the different concerns and had a compromise bill we all felt we could stand behind. Part of that balancing out was an understanding that we would all negotiate with each other, we would all have to agree to changes all the way through conference. Well, we are not even off the House floor and changes are being made in this bill without our agreeing to it. In fact, without even knowing about it. Bipartisanship and working to accomplish something in this House has to involve relying on each other to keep commitments, to be able to rely on each other's understandings of where we are going with any legislation. The provisions in this bill now that have been added are arbitrary. These projects are arbitrarily designated as being ahead of everybody else, every other water system in the country. It is not for public health reasons. It is for political reasons that some projects are being given special treatment. I feel very sad to have to come here to the floor after all this effort and urge my colleagues not to support this legislation. It seems to me a very poor way for us to be moving legislation that should be a proud accomplishment that all of us should look with pride as having done something in the public interest. Mr. Speaker, I will yield to others who may want to speak on this legislation, but, while we have in the past told all our colleagues to support the bill, now we have to urge opposition to it. If these projects are meritorious, let us have a vote on them. Let Members have a discussion as to those specific projects. If they were presented to us on the House floor and the Members wanted to go along with it, then I would really have no complaint, even if I were to oppose it. But to have special projects that amount to political pork inserted in the bill and then we have to vote for the whole bill and move those projects along with a bill that everybody wanted seems to me the improper way for us to proceed. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding, Mr. Speaker. Let us not overstate this revolving fund. We are offended by it. But this bill is a good bill. One of the reasons it is a good bill is the provision the gentleman has authored to be sure we had estrogenic review of any impurities in the drinking water, any kind of pollutants that would have a causal effect on breast cancer. This is a very good bill. Let us not forget it is a very good bill. Let us not ignore that we have something we can be very proud of. It is unfortunate that we have the disagreement, and we are stating our disagreements about the result of putting in these earmarkings of the water systems. That is something we will debate and will go to conference on and talk further about, but I wanted, while the gentleman is speaking, to make the point that his contribution led to this being a much better bill in a very fundamental way. The American people are worried about impacts on them from chemicals. The idea that in their drinking water there might be something that could be a cause of breast cancer is a horrifying thought. We will now measure that, we will screen for it, and make sure that does not happen.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments and I hope that we will be together on this legislation, if not today, down the road, because we have been consistently fighting the battle on the same side. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I do not believe that anything in Santa Monica is in this legislation. That was on another matter. The fact of the matter is, my colleague's committee made some decisions. My complaint is not about that committee making decisions within its jurisdiction. My complaint is that, when we agreed in our committee on a drinking water bill, we agreed that everybody, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], myself, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis], and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], had to sign off on any changes in the bill that we had. We feel we were not consulted in the changes that were made. That is our complaint. Our complaint is not with my colleague and not with the members of his committee, as to what he may have pursued within his own committee as it affected the bill that we all agreed to and had mutual commitments would not be changed.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I do want to take this opportunity to tell the gentleman from New York that he has played a very important role in fashioning a Safe Drinking Water Act that we can be proud of. The right-to-know provisions in this legislation are just one of the areas from an environmental perspective that we have in this legislation due to his enormous efforts. On this bill and any others that affect the environment, the public health, he has been a champion, and I want to commend him for it. We do not have a disagreement over this legislation and the substance of this legislation. My only complaint, and it is not with the gentleman from New York, is that on our side we were never consulted about the specific projects. We were never consulted about it. We did not know about it until it was put in this legislation. I do want to underscore the points my colleague has made that, after all the work that has been done, we have a drinking water bill on substance that is one we should proudly support. My only objections are the changes were made.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking Member for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] what an important contribution he played in this bill. One of the very significant features of this bill is the right to know section that will give people clear information about any risks they are taking. I think that is important for people to have. We ought to empower people with that kind of information. I want the Members of this body to know that the gentleman from New Jersey, who introduced his own legislation, has worked with me and others and was responsible for this.

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

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing two outstanding citizens, Bernard and Annette Abend. One June 23, 1996, Bernard Abend will be honored with a lifetime achievement award in recognition of his 36 years of devoted service to Etz Jacob Congregation. On this special occasion, he and Annette will also celebrate their golden wedding anniversary. Bernard and Annette Abend, who were born in Poland and suffered through the atrocities of concentration encampment during the Holocaust, did not meet until after World War II. They married in 1946 and soon after emigrated to the United States. The new paths they forged for themselves in Scranton, PA were enriched with the births of their two daughters and the many challenges facing a young family in an adopted land. Seeking new opportunities, the Abend family moved to Los Angeles, CA in 1959 and Etz Jacob Congregation quickly became a central part of their lives. Bernard Abend's 32 years as president of the congregation from 1964 to 1996 marked a period of great expansion and religious inspiration. Under his capable and energetic leadership, a social hall, holy ark, Holocaust memorial, and the Etz Jacob Hebrew Academy were constructed. It is indeed fitting that the congregation honor Bernard Abend for his contributions to Etz Jacob Congregation in conjunction with its celebration of Bernard and Annette's golden wedding anniversary. Their life together has been inextricably intertwined with the growth and blessings of Etz Jacob Congregation. I ask my colleagues to join me in extending best wishes to Bernard, Annette, and their beloved daughters and grandchildren for continued happiness, good health, and prosperity.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. The gentleman is absolutely correct. This Congress and the leadership of this Congress has done exactly what the tobacco industry has wanted it to do. It has stopped any investigation of the tobacco industry. It has condemned the Food and Drug Administration as it attempts to deal with the problems of children being seduced into smoking. It has supported the continued subsidies of the tobacco industry and its farmers. We are losing the war, and the people who have been elected to be responsible for the Nation are turning their backs on that whole effort.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. WAXMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Texas well knows, the most powerful special interest in this country is the tobacco industry. They have invariably gotten their way in the Congress of the United States. The inquiry that our subcommittee conducted about tobacco industry practices was stopped. The tobacco industry is a major campaign contributor.

Mr. WAXMAN. The new leadership of the committee decided that there was no reason for this country and this Congress to look into tobacco industry practices.

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