Henry Waxman

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, this is an easy bill to vote against. It was presented to us by a Republican President and by a Republican administration so blinded by their ideology of deregulation that it kept them from preventing this crisis. Because of the masterful work of Chairman Barney Frank and of others, it is incredibly improved. We hope it will work to stabilize the economy. Nobel Prize economists have recommended alternative approaches, but almost all of them have said, ``Don't leave without passing something.'' This is a Republican bill which must pass with bipartisan votes. Many Democrats don't like it. Many Republicans are choking on it. We aren't going to get another bill or a better bill this year, but we will be back to make real reforms, more reforms next year. For now, it would be irresponsible to do nothing. I will vote for this bill.

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in reluctant support of H.R. 3997, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act. This is an easy bill to vote against. It was presented to us by a Republican President and Republican Administration so blinded by their ideology of deregulation that it kept them from preventing this crisis. This is a Republican bill which must pass with bipartisan votes. Many Democrats don't like it. Many Republicans are choking on it. But for now, it would be irresponsible to do nothing and I will vote for this bill. Our economy has been imperiled by a combination of runaway greed on Wall Street and stunning indifference to oversight and regulation from Washington. It is fundamentally unfair that the taxpayers are being asked to pay $700 billion to bail out Wall Street, while the executives who made the reckless investments can walk away with millions. Yet that is what the Administration asked us to do. Because of the masterful work of Chairman Barney Frank and others, this bill is much improved. Some of the worst elements of the Administration's plan have been modified. But at its core, what we are voting on is the Bush bailout plan. In essence, the Administration has forced us to choose between adopting their plan or doing nothing. This is a Hobson's choice. I would have preferred that we take a different approach. Nobel Prize economists have recommended alternative approaches. A broad range of economists have urged the Administration and Congress to take more time and to consider alternatives that would put less burden on the taxpayers. But the Bush Administration has been adamant that Congress adopt its approach. They have steadfastly resisted considering other options to protect the taxpayer. I have reluctantly decided to vote for the plan, but I do so only because the alternative of doing nothing is worse. Even the economists who question the structure and effectiveness of the Administration's proposal say that doing nothing would imperil our economy. That is a risk we should not take. We urgently need to enact comprehensive reform of our financial markets. That is why the Oversight Committee will be conducting a series of hearings starting next week to examine what went wrong and who should be held accountable. These hearings will help provide all members with a roadmap to the reforms we will need to place into law under the next Administration. I want to comment specifically on the provisions in the bill which ensure that the Government Accountability Office will have adequate access to documents and persons involved in the Troubled Asset Relief Program. As the chair of the committee with jurisdiction over GAO, I was involved in writing this important language. GAO oversight is a critical component in ensuring the $700 billion is spent wisely and responsibly. To do its important job, GAO will need broad access to information. The legislative language reflects this by providing GAO with access to ``any information, data, schedules, books, accounts, financial records, reports, files, electronic communication, or other papers, things, or property belonging to or in use by the TARP, or any vehicles established by the Secretary under this Act, and to the officers, directors, employees, independent public accountants, financial advisors, and other agents and representatives of the TARP . . . or any such vehicle at such reasonable time as the Comptroller may request.'' This right of access covers both papers and people. GAO has a right to review any documents and communications that relate to the financial rescue program, regardless of whether they are federal records or the records of contractors hired to help run the program. Equally important, the language gives GAO the right to interview the federal officials and the private accountants, advisors, and others who are involved in administering the program. The transactions envisioned by the Act are going to be complex by their very nature. To understand these complex transactions, GAO will need direct access to the individuals most knowledgeable about the program, and this legislation gives them this right. The legislation provides that GAO's access is provided ``to the extent otherwise consistent with law.'' This phrase ensures that where the rights of access provided by this legislation overlap with existing rights of access, they should be applied consistently. A good example involves GAO's right to enforce its right of access to federal records. Another provision of law, 31 U.S.C. 716, spells out in detail the steps GAO must take to enforce its right to documents. In the event of a conflict with the Treasury Department over access to documents, GAO should use its existing authority under section 716 to enforce its right of access. In some important respects, the GAO language in this bill goes beyond existing law. For example, it gives GAO rights to interview federal officials that GAO does not have under other laws. These new rights are being extended to GAO because of the importance of GAO oversight to the success of this unprecedented intervention in the markets. This is not an easy vote for any member, and it is not an easy vote for me. But in the end, we cannot let our anger at the excesses on Wall Street lead us to reject a bill that could avoid a calamity for Main Street. That is why I am going to support this legislation.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I stand in support of H.R. 7217, the Federal Real Property Disposal Enhancement Act. H.R. 7217 is the byproduct of bipartisan bicameral collaboration and I want to congratulate Representatives Moore and Duncan for their commitment to federal real property reform. I also want to acknowledge Senators Carper and Coburn for their dedication also. I must also recognize the hard work and efforts of Ranking Member Davis. What we have before us is a sensible bill which will help move surplus real property out of the federal inventory. The bill allows the General Services Administration (GSA) to help pay the costs of other agencies' disposal activities. In particular, GSA will be able to help agencies pay costs with regard to properties that have yet to be declared excess. These costs include environmental cleanup, demolition, surveying, and life cycle costing. In addition, this bill modifies existing law to make clear that when a property has been transferred to a nonprofit organization or a state or local government for a public purpose, and that public purpose is no longer being met, the property must revert to the Federal Government, which must dispose of it. The bill also allows all agencies to retain the proceeds from the sale of federal surplus properties. These proceeds will be used for disposal activities and also may be used for maintenance and repairs. Moreover, the bill includes a pilot program, under which agencies can, for certain properties scheduled for demolition, avoid the quarterly suitability canvas performed by Housing and Urban Development (HUD), allowing agencies to try and dispose of such properties on an accelerated timeframe. Furthermore, this bill ensures strong data collection and reporting so the Federal Government can keep track of the real property in its inventory. Madam Speaker, passage of this bill, a work in progress for over six years, will make federal real property reform a reality. I urge passage. Attached is an exchange of letters regarding jurisdiction. House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Washington, DC, September 29, 2008. Hon. Henry A. Waxman, Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House of Representatives, 2157 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC Dear Chairman Waxman: I write to you regarding H.R. 7217, a bill to amend title 40, United States Code, to enhance authorities with regard to real property that has yet to be reported excess, and for other purposes. This bill is the product of negotiations between the House and Senate on provisions contained in H.R. 5787, the ``Federal Real Property Disposal Enhancement Act of 2008'', and S. 1667, a bill to establish a pilot program for the expedited disposal of Federal real property. H.R. 7217 contains provisions that fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. I recognize and appreciate your desire to bring this legislation before the House in an expeditious manner and, accordingly, I will not seek a sequential referral of the bill. However, I agree to waive consideration of this bill with the mutual understanding that my decision to forego a sequential referral of the bill does not waive, reduce, or otherwise affect the jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure over this legislation. Please place a copy of this letter and your response acknowledging the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure's jurisdictional interest in the Congressional Record during consideration of the measure on the House Floor. I look forward to working with you as we prepare to pass this important legislation. Sincerely, James L. Oberstar, M.C., Chairman. House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Washington, DC, September 29, 2008. Hon. James Oberstar, Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of Representatives, 2165 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Oberstar: I write to you regarding H.R. 7217, a bill to amend title 40, United States Code, to enhance authorities with regard to real property that has yet to be reported excess, and for other purposes. This bill is the product of negotiations between the House and Senate on provisions contained in H.R. 5787, the ``Federal Real Property Disposal Enhancement Act of 2008'', and S. 1677, a bill to establish a pilot program for the expedited disposal of Federal real property. I agree that provisions in H.R. 7217 are of jurisdictional interest to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. I appreciate your willingness to waive rights to further consideration of H.R. 7217, and I acknowledge that through this waiver, your Committee is not relinquishing its jurisdiction over the relevant provisions of H.R. 7217. This exchange of letters will be placed in the Congressional Record as part of the consideration of H.R. 7217 in the House. I thank you for working with me to pass this important legislation. Sincerely, Henry A. Waxman, Chairman.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, enclosed is an exchange of letters between the Chairmen of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure regarding S. 3536 the ``Air Carriage of International Mail Act.'' House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Washington, DC, September 27, 2008. Hon. Henry A. Waxman, Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Waxman: I write to you regarding S. 3536, the ``Air Carriage of International Mail Act''. S. 3536 contains provisions that fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. I recognize and appreciate your desire to bring this legislation before the House in an expeditious manner and, accordingly, I will not seek a sequential referral of the bill. However, I agree to waive consideration of this bill with the mutual understanding that my decision to forego a sequential referral of the bill does not waive, reduce, or otherwise affect the jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure over S. 3536. Please place a copy of this letter and your response acknowledging the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure's jurisdictional interest in the Congressional Record during consideration of the measure on the House Floor. I look forward to working with you as we prepare to pass this important legislation. Sincerely, James L. Oberstar, M.C., Chairman.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Senate amendments to H.R. 928, the Improving Government Accountability Act. This bill, introduced by Representative Cooper, was favorably reported by the Oversight Committee on August 2, 2007, with strong support from members across the political spectrum. There is a simple reason why this bill has so much support: it strengthens the Inspectors General, who are the first line of defense against waste, fraud, and abuse in federal programs. The last six years have given us examples of Inspectors General at their best and at their worst. Stuart Bowen, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, has uncovered fraud and saved American taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. Clark Kent Erving and Richard Skinner, the former and current IGs for the Department of Homeland Security, have identified billions in wasteful spending in the new Department. Glenn Fine at the Department of Justice; Earl Delvaney at Interior; and Brian Miller at the General Services Administration have all reported courageously on abuses within the agencies they oversee. These and other IGs have fought waste, fraud, and abuse and saved the taxpayers billions of dollars. Yet there are also IGs who seem more intent on protecting their departments from political embarrassment than on doing their job. The Oversight Committee is investigating allegations that the State Department IG has blocked investigations into contract fraud in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Energy and Commerce Committee documented serious abuses by the former IG in the Commerce Department. And the Science Committee has identified serious questions raised about the close relationship of the NASA IG to agency management. This bill strengthens the good IGs by giving them greater independence. Under this legislation, they will have new budgetary independence, and the President or agency head will have to inform Congress 30 days before any IG is removed. At the same time, the legislation enacts in statute new mechanisms for holding bad IGs to account. The legislation establishes an ``Integrity Committee'' that will investigate allegations that IGs have abused the public trust. There have been several key champions of the legislation. Representative Cooper has worked tirelessly on this issue for years and deserves our thanks for his efforts. I would also like to acknowledge Subcommittee Chairman Towns for his tremendous leadership in moving this legislation forward and Ranking Member Tom Davis for his commitment to strong IGs and his many helpful contributions. H.R. 928 would make needed improvements to the IG Act and I urge members to support it.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, this Congress, the House and Senate have passed important Federal contracting reforms, but neither body has assembled them into a comprehensive package. The ``Clean Contracting Act'' in title 8 of the National Defense Authorization Act consolidates these provisions into a single, comprehensive reform measure. I want to particularly thank Chairman Skelton for working with me to help bring these provisions to the House floor today. He has been a tremendous partner in the fight to root out waste, fraud, and abuse. The Clean Contracting Act requires agencies to enhance competition in contracting, limit the use of abuse-prone contracts, start the effort to rebuild the federal acquisition workforce, strengthen important anti-fraud measures, and increase transparency in federal contracting. The provisions in the act respond to procurement abuses that the Oversight Committee, the Armed Services Committee, and other committees have identified in hearings and investigative reports. These egregious procurement practices have occurred in Iraq, in the response to Hurricane Katrina, and at the Department of Homeland Security--and they need to be halted. They may enrich companies like Halliburton and Blackwater, but have squandered billions of dollars that belong to the taxpayer. This legislation says that Congress is serious about stopping waste, fraud, and abuse. One important provision would limit the length of no-bid contracts awarded in emergencies to one year. This provision would end the abuses that occurred after Hurricane Katrina, when many ``emergency'' contracts were allowed to continue for many years. Another provision would require regulations and reporting on the use of cost-plus contracts, which provide contractors with little incentive to control costs. Spending under this type of contract grew over 75 percent between 2000 and 2005. Another important provision would prohibit contractors from charging excessive mark-up charges for work done by subcontractors. This would prevent the infamous ``blue roof'' scandal following Hurricane Katrina, where taxpayers were charged almost $2500 dollars apiece for something that actually cost $300. Other vital provisions in this bill would prevent the abuse of interagency contracts, as was the case at Abu Ghraib, where interrogators were hired using an Interior Department contract for information technology. The bill also includes a modified version of a provision which recently passed the House under suspension of the rules. It is based on a bill authored by Rep. Maloney and requires the development of a database of suspension and debarment information. My only regret is that some of the other key reforms passed by the House were not included in the final version of the legislation. I am disappointed that the House and Senate compromise does not include a ban on private interrogators in U.S. military detention facilities or mandate congressional approval for any security pact with Iraq that is negotiated by the President. I am also greatly disappointed the bill, which authorizes some additional funding for the war in Iraq, fails to set a timeline for the withdrawal of our troops. Still, I urge members to support this bill because the Clean Contracting Act provisions will make a fundamental difference in the way our government operates and begin to restore taxpayer confidence.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. You certainly had a right, but you chose not to exercise that right. It was up to you. What we discussed was that we have a clean vote on the substitute and a clean vote on the bill. There might have been a misunderstanding, but it was on your part.

Mr. WAXMAN. The gentleman is incorrect.

Mr. WAXMAN. No. If the gentleman would yield, I said to you if you would offer your substitute, we will vote on it, we will offer the underlying bill.

Mr. WAXMAN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, the bill that is before us is a very simple bill. It directs the District of Columbia to comply with the recent Supreme Court decision in the Heller case which held that the second amendment gives individuals the right to have a handgun at home for personal protection. The Heller decision is now the law of the land, and the District of Columbia, just like every other State or local government in this country, has a legal obligation to follow it. Our committee, the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, has jurisdiction over the District of Columbia and so our committee reported this measure last week to underline the District's legal obligations. The bill tells the city government in very clear, unequivocal terms that it has to conform its law to comply with the Heller decision. It even sets a deadline for the District to complete this effort in 180 days. This measure, sponsored by Ms. Norton and myself and others, was adopted by the committee of jurisdiction by a vote of 21-1. An amendment could have been offered like the amendment that is being offered today. It was not offered in committee. The committee recommended on a vote of 21-1 on a bipartisan basis that we support this legislation. Now I know there is going to be an amendment proposed to this bill, but that amendment would trample on the principle of home rule for the District. If the District of Columbia adopts legislation that complies with the Supreme Court, it is no business of any Representative from other areas in this country to override the decision of the District of Columbia. D.C. residents are the only Americans who pay Federal taxes but are denied a vote in Congress. That is fundamentally wrong, and when Congress overrules the City Council and the mayor, we compound that wrong. The District I believe is acting responsibly, and I think we ought to let them pursue their legislation to comply with the Supreme Court decision. I ask my colleagues to imagine how you would feel if the Congress of the United States tried to dictate the gun laws or any other laws for your district. I think you would be outraged. Yet that is exactly what some Members want to do today. Now we are going to have a substitute amendment that will be offered to Congresswoman Norton's bill that does more than trample on home rule. It is also an exceptionally dangerous proposal. It repeals key safeguards the District has established to protect our Nation's capital and the many officials who live and work here. Even basic commonsense measures like gun registration which tells law enforcement who possesses a weapon and enables background checks would be repealed. I urge support of the underlying bill and rejection of the substitute.

Mr. WAXMAN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WAXMAN. Is it your position that the amendment that will be offered does not allow AK-47s?

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, the Supreme Court ruled in the Heller case that the District of Columbia could not ban handguns. They said that would violate the second amendment. The Supreme Court said every individual has a right to own a handgun. That's now the law of the land. The District of Columbia has finalized its revision of its laws just today, and I defy any Member of this body to say that the District of Columbia has failed to comply with the second amendment to the Constitution under the Heller decision. I think that the District of Columbia has complied with that law. I know we've heard from Members of Congress that D.C. is unwilling to comply and that they're unwilling to live by the law of the land. Well, let us examine that D.C. law more carefully. Since it only was finally enacted today, I would suggest that when this bill goes to the other body that they hold this bill up and review that D.C. law. The District of Columbia is not obligated to do all of the things that are in this substitute. In fact, not one single provision of H.R. 6691 is required by the second amendment or by the Supreme Court decision in the Heller case. Let me just walk through it. One provision removes the District's longstanding ban on semiautomatic assault rifles and pistols. Well, there is nothing in the second amendment that guarantees an individual's right to high-powered military assault rifles capable of firing more than 30 rounds without reloading. There is certainly nothing in the Heller case that says that. Evidently, the people who are offering this substitute don't like the fact that the D.C. Government agreed with that provision, but they said that they would limit it to 10 rounds. Well, there is nothing in the Constitution that says it has to be 30 or more. One provision of this substitute removes the District's longstanding provision for a registration system, which includes D.C.'s required background checks before someone can buy a gun. Well, there is nothing in the second amendment that says individuals have a right not to register their guns. Yet the substitute would wipe out that D.C. law. Now, it was said by one of the advocates of this substitute that this is a burdensome requirement for registration that was put malevolently in place by the District of Columbia. Well, I want you all to know that it was also put in place by California, Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey, Michigan, Chicago, Cleveland, New York City, and Omaha, and I don't think that any of those jurisdictions are violating the second amendment to the Constitution. Another provision in this substitute would take away the ability of the District of Columbia's law enforcement authorities, through their registration system, to trace guns used in crimes. It helps them figure out who bought the guns, who transferred them, how they got into the hands of the criminal or terrorist. That's not in violation of the second amendment, and yet this substitute would repeal it. This amendment would allow people to obtain firearms without criminal background checks. I don't know why they think the second amendment requires that, because it does not. This amendment goes far beyond the Heller case. It goes far beyond the second amendment to the Constitution. It is gratuitously rewriting the law of the District of Columbia. It is not our job to rewrite a law passed by the people elected in the District of Columbia if that law complies with the Constitution of the United States. I urge that we reject the substitute amendment.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6575, the Over-Classification Reduction Act, is aimed at reducing over-classification by the Federal Government. I introduced this bill with the Ranking Member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Tom Davis. I want to thank Ranking Member Davis for working with me to move this bill. I also want to thank Chairman Reyes and Representative Harman for their cooperation on this bill and for their leadership on this issue. In addition, I want to recognize Representative Clay for his work on this issue. The 9/11 Commission recommended providing incentives for information sharing, ``to restore a better balance between security and shared knowledge.'' But unfortunately, that advice has not been heeded. We continue to see the Federal Government fostering secrecy using the tool of over-classification. As the 9/11 Commission pointed out in its report, ``[c]urrent security requirements nurture overclassification and excessive compartmentalization of information among agencies. Each agency's incentive structure opposes sharing, with risks . . . but few rewards for sharing information. No one has to pay the long-term costs of overclassifying information, though these costs--even in literal financial terms--are substantial.'' H.R. 6575 would require the Archivist to promulgate regulations to prevent the over-classification of information. This bill would increase accountability by allowing individuals to challenge decisions to classify information and requiring that successful challenges be rewarded. The bill improves oversight of classification decisions by requiring the Inspector General of each affected agency to randomly audit classified information to determine whether the appropriate procedures were followed and to provide recommendations for improvements. It also requires training for employees to proactively prevent over-classification. The problem of over-classification is governmentwide and it demands a governmentwide solution. In order to improve information sharing, every agency that has employees with the authority to classify documents must be held accountable. This bill does that. I urge support for H.R. 6575.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4081 because of the important difference it will make in reducing young people's access to cigarettes. The tobacco industry has long targeted the nation's youth. As this Committee learned in 1998 when I released documents from inside the board room of RJR, tobacco executives had an explicit strategy of hooking our children to create lifelong, addicted consumers. Recently, states have begun to fight back with stronger laws to prevent teenagers from buying tobacco products. These laws require photo IDs to be shown at the point of purchase. But these efforts haven't been successful in addressing the traffic of cigarettes through our newest, and least controlled, market: the internet. Today, a young person anywhere in the country can go online and find a site that sells cigarettes. He or she can find a site that doesn't require any kind of meaningful age verification. And then the teenager can order cigarettes and have them delivered right to his or her home. Despite the efforts of public health advocates, the flow of cigarettes to minors--and the evasion of state and local taxes-- continues. The majority of online cigarettes are shipped through the U.S. mails. So I am particularly supportive of this bill's inclusion of a provision to make cigarettes, smokeless tobacco, and roll-your-own tobacco nonmailable products. The bill has incorporated important provisions from H.R. 2932, a bill on tobacco nonmailability introduced by Congressman McHugh. I thank Congressman McHugh and Congressman Weiner for their leadership on this important issue, and look forward to ongoing collaboration in reducing smoking among America's youth.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of our subcommittee for yielding to me. This bill that we are considering now, the Animal Drug User Fee Act, or ADUFA, will enhance and improve FDA's ability to promptly review new medicines for animals, and that is very important that we all support this. This reauthorization has also given us an opportunity to look at providing FDA with new tools to address a related public health crisis, the problem of antibiotic resistance caused by the industrial farming practice of using human antibiotics for non-therapeutic uses in food producing animals. We now have an overwhelming body of evidence showing that the overuse of antibiotics in industrial farm production is threatening to destroy the effectiveness of some of our most important antibiotics for human use. Many of the world's most prestigious experts, the Institute of Medicine, the Pew Commission, World Health Organization and Government Accountability Office have warned about the dangers to global public health of such widespread overuse. These drugs are breeding resistant microorganisms that can and do get transferred to humans. They also leach into the environment and show up in our drinking water. The experts have told us that the more antibiotics we consume, the more resistance develops. The ADUFA bill we are considering includes a provision to increase the availability and accessibility of data on the amount of animal antibiotics being distributed. This data will help us to determine how resistant bugs are developing and inform research on ways to stop those bugs from threatening human health. This is an important step forward, and I appreciate the cooperation of Chairman Dingell and Chairman Pallone in helping us to get this done. But let me be clear: This is only just the beginning. We, in Congress, need to do much more to address the problem of antibiotic resistance. It is imperative that we look at ways to curtail the practice of using the same antibiotics that are so vitally important for preventing and curing human disease for non-therapeutic uses in food-producing animals. I look forward to continuing to work with our colleagues on this important issue.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Madam Speaker, this is truly an historic day in the fight against tobacco, but it took us far too long to get here. In 1994, the tobacco executives stood before my subcommittee, held their hands up, swore to tell the truth, and then immediately lied under oath and said, ``Nicotine, it's not addictive. Children, we don't try to market to children.'' Of course, the opposite was true. In 1996, the FDA tried to regulate tobacco products, but the Supreme Court told them they needed specific congressional language to give them that authority. Now, 12 years later, here we are, finally giving the FDA that authority to regulate the leading preventable cause of death in America. Every one of us knows the tragic consequences of cigarette smoking. We've seen loved ones die, suffer. We've watched others grow sick. Many of us have felt the grip firsthand of addiction, but the worst of all is what happens to children. One thousand children start smoking each and every day. Four hundred thousand Americans die every year. The minority leader said: When is enough enough? Well, cigarettes, one of the most dangerous products on sale today, is not regulated at all. This bill would give the FDA, the only agency with the right combination of scientific expertise, with regulatory experience and with a public health mission, the ability to oversee the products effectively. The FDA can stop that marketing to kids. They can prevent manufacturers from misrepresenting their products as ``light'' or as ``safer.'' They can require changes in cigarettes. They can change the level of nicotine so that people who smoke and who want to give up smoking will have a fighting chance. They can regulate ingredients such as formaldehyde or benzene or radioactive elements or any other deadly chemical. Now, some have argued that the FDA is overburdened, that they can't do another job. Well, they are overburdened, and they're not well funded, but this bill has a user fee built into it to raise the money from the tobacco companies to give the FDA the ability to go and regulate this product. The breadth of support for this bill is from the AARP to the American Academy of Pediatrics and from the Southern Baptist Convention to the Islamic Society of North America. It is supported by the American Lung Association, by the American Heart Association and by the American Cancer Society--the groups that are best situated to understand the damage caused by tobacco. We've tried to accommodate specific concerns we've heard about this bill to provide fairness and flexibility for convenient stores and for others. Join in support of this legislation. It is a bipartisan bill, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. WAXMAN. I don't want anybody to be misled. The FDA will not give a seal of approval to any tobacco product they cannot in any way claim is safe or effective. So I think that the last statement that was made by the gentlelady is an incorrect one, and I wanted to correct that point.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in favor of this bill, which marks a great step forward in protecting our children and all Americans from unsafe products. I want to thank Chairman Dingell, Chairman Rush, Ranking Member Barton, and all the other conferees for their hard work in moving this bill forward. I believe this is an extremely strong bill. It provides critically needed new authorities, personnel, and resources for an agency that has grown all but defunct in recent years. I look forward to a day when we can all feel safer as a result of this legislation. There are many important pieces in this bill, as others have noted-- new lead limits, mandatory toy standards, third-party testing, a ban on phthalates, whistleblower protections, and much more. In all of these areas we have strengthened Federal law and provided for better national enforcement with respect to consumer products. At the same time, I am pleased that we have preserved essential State authorities, which are an important tool in protecting consumers. State laws and State action were the catalyst for much of this bill, and it is important that we preserve their ability to take actions in the future whenever it is needed. I would like to engage Chairman Dingell in a colloquy to address the issue of preserving State warning requirements. I am pleased that the bill protects State warning laws related to consumer products or substances, such as California's Proposition 65. The conference report clarifies that any warning laws in effect as of August 31, 2003 are not preempted by this Act or by the Federal Hazardous Substances Act. This important clarification effectively harmonizes the four statutes that are enforced by the Commission. Other laws enforced by the CPSC, including the Consumer Product Safety Act, clearly do not preempt or affect State warning requirements like Prop 65. I want to make sure that we have corrected any ambiguity with this conference report and harmonized all the Commission's statutes on this point particularly, as well as the Federal Hazardous Substances Act. I want to yield to Chairman Dingell and ask, is it also your understanding that nothing in this legislation or any of the laws enforced by the Consumer Product Safety Commission will preempt or affect Prop 65 in any way?

Mr. WAXMAN. I thank Chairman Dingell. Again, I am pleased to support this bill today. I am going to submit a longer statement for the Record, but I want to commend all those who have been involved in bringing about legislation that Democrats and Republicans can support and state with good, clear conscience that it is a very important step forward for consumers. I am pleased to speak in favor of this bill, which marks a great step forward in protecting our children and all Americans from unsafe products. I want to thank Chairman Dingell, Chairman Rush, Ranking Member Barton, and all of the Conferees for their hard work in moving this bill. I believe that this is an extremely strong bill. It provides critically needed new authorities, personnel, and resources for an Agency that has grown all but defunct in recent years. I look forward to a day when we can all feel safer as a result of this bill. There are many important pieces of this bill, as others have noted-- new lead limits, mandatory toy standards, third-party testing, a ban on phthalates, whistleblower protections, and much more. In all of these areas, we have strengthened Federal law and provided for better national enforcement with respect to consumer products. At the same time, I am pleased that we have preserved essential state authorities, which are an essential tool in protecting consumers. State laws and state action were the catalyst for much of this bill, and it is important that we preserve their ability to take such action in the future, whenever it is needed. One critical state law in this process was California's Proposition 65, which requires manufacturers to label any product that contains a known carcinogen or reproductive toxin. That law has played a unique role in protecting all Americans for decades, so it was important to me that we not interfere with it in this legislation. I am therefore pleased that the conference report makes clear that any state warning laws like Prop 65 that were in effect as of August 31, 2003, are not preempted by this Act or by the Federal Hazardous Substances Act. This important clarification effectively harmonizes the four statutes that are enforced by the Commission. Other laws enforced by CPSC, including the Consumer Product Safety Act, clearly do not preempt or affect state warning requirements like Prop 65. The Federal Hazardous Substances Act, however, is ambiguous as to its effect on state warning requirements. I am pleased that we have corrected this ambiguity with this conference report and harmonized all of the Commission's statutes on this point. I am also pleased that under another key provision of the legislation--the new prohibition on phthalates--states retain the ability to regulate phthalates in product classes that are not regulated under this legislation. States also retain authority to enforce any toy safety standards that were in effect on the date of enactment of this bill, as long as they notify CPSC of the standard. I am pleased that the bill includes explicit language to preserve states' ability to regulate alternatives to phthalates, such as other chemical plasticizers that might be used as substitutes to the phthalates that will be removed from toys under this law. The bill itself does not address the use of hazardous alternatives to phthalates when the prohibition goes into effect, so it is critical that states can act in this area. California has a law on phthalate alternatives and it is important that that law will remain in effect as the new Federal ban on phthalates enters into force. Finally, I am pleased that under the bill, states have the authority to require additional or more effective testing protocols. Because testing protocols can change over time as tests become more sensitive and science evolves, states must be free to move ahead even when Federal requirements lag behind. The states' ability to act quickly and proactively provides an essential backstop of protection for consumers, and this bill makes sure that backstop remains in place. Again, I thank Chairman Dingell and Chairman Rush for putting together such a strong bill for all Americans.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6388) to provide additional authorities to the Comptroller General of the United States, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days during which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This bill, H.R. 6388, the Government Accountability Office Improvement Act, is crucial legislation for protecting the taxpayers from waste, fraud, and abuse, and it is a cornerstone of Congress' efforts to improve oversight of the executive branch. There are many details in this legislation, but the essence of this bill before us is about fighting waste, fraud, and abuse. It gives GAO access to the information it needs and helps Congress legislate effectively. One of our most important jobs as Members of Congress is to protect the interests of the Federal taxpayer. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, we have no further requests for time and yield back the balance of our time.