Henry Waxman

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. Today we mark an ominous anniversary. It was 5 years ago today that President Bush signed the congressional authorization to use military force in Iraq. As we have learned since, that authorization was based on fatally flawed information. Congress and the American people were told that we needed to go to war against Saddam Hussein because he had weapons of mass destruction. But there were no nuclear bombs or biological weapons. Now, 5 years later, more than 3,800 U.S. servicemembers have been killed, more than 28,000 have been injured, and the U.S. taxpayers have spent more than $450 billion; and Iraq is in shambles. Today we are considering a different resolution. The purpose of today's resolution is simple: to end the abuse of the classification process and to demand the truth about corruption in Iraq. We must stop the pattern of dissembling and the misuse of classified information. President Bush is now asking taxpayers for an additional $150 billion to support the war and to support Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. But . . . is not being honest about the level of corruption in the Maliki government. Just as it did 5 years ago, the Bush administration is hiding the truth while seeking hundreds of billions of dollars and placing our troops in danger. We cannot allow this to happen.

Mr. WAXMAN. I gather that the offensive word is that ``he'' is not being honest, and what I intended to say is that the Bush administration is not being honest. I think that removes the objection that would lie against a personal disparagement, so I would seek to make that clarification and ask unanimous consent to withdraw that spoken word.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, the Bush administration is hiding the truth while seeking hundreds of billions of dollars and placing our troops in danger, and we cannot allow this to happen. We need answers to some very important questions: How corrupt is the Maliki government? Are top officials in Iraq stealing billions of dollars to fund insurgents who are attacking and killing our troops? Is corruption undermining the chances for political reconciliation? Secretary of State Rice says she will answer these questions only on one condition: every Member of Congress who hears the answers has to keep the answers secret. Well, that's an outrageous abuse of the classification system. Earlier this month, the former head of the Iraqi Commission on Public Integrity, Judge Radhi, testified before the Oversight Committee. He told us that corrupt Iraqi officials had stolen a staggering $18 billion and used part of that money to fund terrorists. He told us that when he tried to track down who was responsible, well, 31 of his investigators were brutally assassinated, and his own family living in the Green Zone was targeted twice with rocket attacks. And he gave us copies of secret orders that Prime Minister Maliki personally issued to protect his allies, including his own cousin, from corruption investigations and prosecutions. Judge Radhi, Special Inspector General Stuart Bowen and Comptroller General David Walker all told us that corruption is so entrenched in Iraq that it is jeopardizing our troops and our mission. But when we asked the State Department for unclassified documents about the extent of corruption in the Maliki government, Secretary Rice retroactively classified them. And when we asked the embassy officials when they knew about corruption, she ordered them not to respond. Secretary Rice has made public statements praising the anticorruption efforts of the Maliki government, and he, himself, she praised; and she even praised the corrupt Interior Ministry. But when we asked embassy officials in Iraq whether her public statements were accurate, they said they were not allowed to respond unless we agreed to keep their answers secret. Mr. Speaker, 5 years ago, abusive classified information got us into this war. It's time for these abuses to end, and that's why we ask all Members to support this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney), the chairman of the subcommittee dealing with international relations of the Oversight Committee.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch), a member of our committee.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that Mr. Burton, who was chairman of our committee, issued thousands of subpoenas. He received millions of pages of documents. He had hundreds of hours of depositions. He conducted an investigation that has been widely regarded as irresponsible and reckless. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland to speak on this resolution.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I don't understand the argument the gentleman made. But I like his conclusion. So we welcome his support for our resolution. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), a very esteemed member of our committee.

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

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I can understand what the gentleman is saying about sources and methods, and we understand that under some circumstances talking about it in public session might be harmful. But we asked the representative from the State Department questions, such as whether the Government of Iraq currently has the political will or the capability to root out corruption within its government. We were told he couldn't answer that in a public session. That is the problem that we are complaining about in this resolution.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to a very important member of our committee, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), for 3 minutes.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I wish we had everyone sign off on every word in this resolution, but I think the Members ought to understand what this resolution does. It says to the State Department: don't go with a double standard. You can say publicly positive things about the Iraqi Government, but you can't say things that are honest that may be negative about them, and we are not talking about specific statements, but general statements as well. Mr. Speaker, we are in a war in Iraq. Not everybody in this country is making a sacrifice for that war. But those who are being called to make a sacrifice are called to make the maximum sacrifice. They are giving up their lives potentially. The rest of us are paying through deficit spending billions and hundreds of billions of dollars. But if we are going to ask people to give up their lives in this war, what we owe them is to know the truth, not propaganda, but the truth about what this Iraqi Government is doing that may enable them to accomplish the goal that we have said we wanted to accomplish in Iraq, and that is to reach out, to bring about reconciliation in Iraq and a government that has credibility for its own people. If this Government in Iraq is so corrupt that our State Department won't even tell us about it, I have to wonder whether we can ask our brave men and women to risk and to give their lives to support that Iraqi Government. I urge passage of this resolution.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a selfless and a truly great American. For more than 20 years Abbey Meyers has been the voice of people in this country with rare diseases. She has helped establish national policy that has improved the lives of countless patients. Before Abbey Meyers began this important work, these patients had no advocate in Washington. Today no one is more effective in advocating on their behalf. The patients for whom Abbey Meyers works have one of more than 1,000 diseases, diseases that are not known to most people. Because the populations are so small, before 1980 drug companies did virtually no research to find cures for rare diseases, even though these diseases are devastating for afflicted patients and their families. In 1983 Congress enacted the Orphan Drug Act, which provided incentives to drug companies to invest in drugs for rare diseases. Since that time the Food and Drug Administration has approved approximately 200 orphan drugs; another 1000 drugs have been designated for orphan drug research. I believe that most of this work would never have been done without Abbey Meyers and the organization that she established in 1983, the National Organization of Rare Disorders (NORD). Abbey Meyers's success is due to her enormous skills in assisting patients in navigating the political world in Washington and in mastering complex scientific issues. Abbey Meyers and NORD support more than 2,000 patient organizations. She is a frequent witness on Capitol Hill on health policy issues. And she has had a significant influence on research into pharmaceuticals for rare disease. Recently Abbey Meyers has announced that she will retire as President of NORD. It is hard to imagine resolving major public health issues without her input. While we wish Abbey a joyful retirement, we know with near certainty that she will never stop thinking about what policies will best benefit patients in this country, and we will continue to benefit from her commitment and knowledge.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 814, a commonsense bill that will protect children from severe harm. The Children's Gasoline Burn Prevention Act will resolve a long- standing loophole in Federal law. For more than 30 years, we have required that household hazardous materials be sold in child resistant containers. Gasoline cans were exempt from this requirement for one simple reason. They are sold empty. They do not hold any hazardous material when they are purchased. This is a meaningless distinction--the sole purpose of these cans is to hold gasoline, a highly flammable and dangerous material. This bill will require that companies sell cans that children can't open. I worked with my colleague Dennis Moore to introduce a similar bill last Congress, after I learned about young children who were killed or permanently injured in fires that began when the children accidentally opened a gas can. Stephen Diaz, a California boy, is just one example. He opened a gas can in his family garage and knocked it over. The fumes ignited, and he was burned over half of his body. This fire, and many others, could and should have been prevented. I am pleased that the bill has been reintroduced this Congress and is on the floor today. The Children's Gasoline Burn Prevention Act is a simple but important piece of legislation that I urge my colleagues to support.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Towns for yielding to me. I rise in strong support of H.R. 928, the Improving Government Accountability Act. It is a bipartisan bill. It 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 6 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 cumulatively billions of dollars. Yet there are also IGs who seem more intent on protecting their departments from political embarrassment than on doing their jobs. Our 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 can only be removed for cause, not for doing their job. And they will now have new budgetary independence. 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 this bill. 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 all Members to support it.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. I urge all Members to support the bill and to vote against the motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I share the goals expressed by my friend and colleague, Mr. Davis, the gentleman from Virginia, but I oppose it as a motion to recommit, because this bill is about Inspectors General, and their job is to weed out waste, fraud and abuse. But if this motion to recommit would identify that their primary job, if this motion passes, would be to identify programs that aren't working and then to recommend changes in them. Well, that's a worthwhile thing for them to do, but that should not be and is not their primary job. The principal duty of the IGs is to do the work of an independent watchdog, to find out if there's waste, fraud and abuse. This would turn it into their principal duty to do an annual report on abolishing and reorganizing programs in agencies. They would have to do an annual report on reorganization. Well, that is going to be a lot of busywork. If you like government bureaucracy, then vote for the motion to recommit. But if you like the idea of independent Inspectors General looking out for waste, fraud and abuse as their prime job, then I would urge Members to vote ``no.'' But I want to indicate to my colleagues that whether this motion to recommit passes or is defeated, I want to work with the sponsor of this motion to recommit to achieve our shared objectives. Oftentimes, we have waste, fraud and abuse because the objectives of the agency need to be changed. And we want those recommendations to come before us. I'd like to yield whatever time he may consume to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper).

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, this bill allows the extension of some important programs, specifically Transitional Medical Assistance and the Medicare Qualifying Individual Program. But it unfortunately ties these necessary provisions to yet another ill-considered extension of the federal abstinence-only program. Keeping federal abstinence-only programs in the form they've taken for the past ten years is an embarrassment to Congress, an insult to taxpayers and a disservice to the health of American young people. We all support promoting abstinence as the healthiest choice for young people. But the abstinence-only programs we've been funding are a mistake. They contain serious misinformation and, most importantly, are not effective in improving adolescent health. In 2004 a report I released looked at federally-funded abstinence- only programs and found that the vast majority of the most popular curricula had significant scientific and medical errors. Kids were being taught that HIV can be spread by tears and sweat, that condoms don't help protect against STDs, and that pregnancy occurs one in every seven times a couple uses condoms. In 2006, GAO found that HHS still wasn't reviewing the medical accuracy of curricula used in the biggest federal abstinence-only programs. GAO also said there was no reliable evidence that these programs improve participants' health. In 2007, HHS released the results of an evaluation it had commissioned itself on the effectiveness of federally-funded abstinence-only programs. In this randomized, controlled study--the gold standard of research--the abstinence-only programs had no impact on whether teens had sex. They had no impact on the age of first sex. They had no impact on the number of partners. And they had no impact on rates of pregnancy or sexually transmitted disease. It's not surprising, in light of all this, that eleven states have decided they'd rather not receive federal abstinence-only money at all. This program is broken. We've given abstinence-only programs one billion dollars in the past decade. $500 million of that has been through this program. And that doesn't include the matching money states have put in. And for all that money, all we've been able to show the taxpayers are glaring medical errors and zero impact on adolescent health. Language passed by the House in August would have required programs to contain medically accurate information; mandated that programs be based on models proven effective in improving adolescent pregnancy, HIV, or sexually transmitted disease rates; and given states the option of offering more comprehensive health information. I want to be clear. I do not think we should fund any abstinence-only programs. I don't think that we should be funding federal programs that are specifically premised on withholding crucial and age-appropriate health information from young people. But I am heartened by Chairman Dingell's statement that he will continue to fight for the House changes, because I believe they will move us closer to a responsible federal position on sex education. I offer Mr. Dingell my full support in ensuring that federally-funded programs actually improve the health and well-being of American youth.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. I thank Chairman Oberstar for yielding to me. I am rising out of concern about a serious safety problem at the Santa Monica General Aviation Airport in my congressional district. The Santa Monica Airport is a unique facility. It was built in 1922 and has no runway safety areas which are now required by the FAA to enable a safe landing in the event that an aircraft overshoots the runway or fails to lift off. The airport's single runway is bordered by steep hills, public streets, and densely populated neighborhoods, with homes as close as 250 feet from the runway. As traffic has increased, so have concerns that any plane overshooting the runway would be at great risk of landing in the neighborhood. For more than 7 years, I have worked with the City of Santa Monica and the Airport Administration to push the FAA to address this serious safety problem. Regrettably, the FAA has been unwilling to take meaningful action. The FAA recently issued a final decision to permit only minor runway changes that are far below FAA standards and would do little to change the status quo. I want to ask Chairman Oberstar to work with me and the FAA to find a solution that is consistent with FAA design guidelines for the Santa Monica Airport and adequately addresses the safety needs of all aircraft categories that use the airport.

Mr. WAXMAN. I thank you for your willingness to try to bring us all together. I just want to emphasize that time is of the essence here. We need to do all we can to make operations at Santa Monica Airport safer for the pilots, passengers, and people on the ground. We may need legislative changes in that regard.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, the legislation we are considering provides FDA with critical tools the agency has been desperately lacking in its efforts to protect the American public from unsafe drugs. This legislation will provide FDA with the ability to require companies to update their drug label with new information, and FDA won't have to haggle with companies to get them to make those changes. It also says, in giving FDA this labeling change authority, Congress is making it clear that we do not intend to impact a drug company's responsibility to promptly update its label with safety information on its own accord. The legislation also gives FDA the authority to require companies to conduct postmarket studies and clinical trials of drugs. And it creates a mandatory clinical trial registry and results database to increase the transparency of those trials. Mr. Speaker, before we break our arms trying to pat ourselves on the back, I want to express my deep disappointment that today we are walking away from a critical opportunity to make some reasonable adjustments to the windfall profits that drug companies receive for conducting pediatric studies under the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act. This is not about whether those pediatric studies should be done. We all agree about that. They are being done now. There is no question they will continue to be done. But if we were to cut back slightly on the term of exclusivity for only the blockbuster drugs, that would make a great deal of difference to people who are paying the high cost for pharmaceuticals. In my view, we lost that opportunity, and it is going to hurt a lot of our consumers. In my view, there is simply no justification for rewarding companies with incentives that are so far in excess of the actual cost of doing the studies themselves. I am also deeply disturbed the legislation fails to remove the sunset on FDA's authority to require pediatric studies under the Pediatric Research and Equity Act. There is absolutely no reason Congress needs to keep revisiting this commonsense measure that allows FDA to get essential information about whether new therapies are safe and effective for children. So although I am pleased that today will provide FDA with important new authorities and resources, I must express my deep regret that we fail to take this opportunity to help individuals, businesses, State governments and insurers who pay the bill for the higher prices that result when generic competition is delayed for these expensive blockbuster drugs. I think it is a shame. We are talking about drugs of $5 billion in sales a year. If they spend a couple million dollars for their studies, they are being overreimbursed at the consumer's expense.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, the legislation are poised to pass today provides FDA, for the first time, critical tools that the Agency has been desperately lacking in its efforts to protect the American public from unsafe drugs. This legislation will provide FDA with the ability to require companies to update their drug label with new safety information. Our goal here is to address tragic situations like Vioxx. In that case, because FDA could not compel the company to promptly make a labeling change, the Agency haggled with the company for 14 months before consumers were finally warned about serious cardiac risks in the drug label. This is simply unacceptable. However, this legislation will make clear that, in giving FDA this labeling change authority, Congress does not intend to impact, in any way, a drug company's responsibility to promptly update its label with safety information on its own accord. Under FDA's current regulations, companies are required to add new warnings to their labels as soon as they learn of new dangers, even if FDA has not yet required the change. In promulgating those regulations, FDA made a sensible policy choice. FDA recognized that the companies themselves are in the best position to know about risks associated with their own drugs. Logically, then, the companies should also be charged with the duty to make consumers aware of a drug's risk at the earliest possible moment. FDA recognized that drug safety is first and foremost a shared responsibility between the Agency and the company. And, today, Congress is making it clear that we do not mean to disrupt that balance. This legislation will also give FDA for the first time the authority to require companies to conduct post-market studies and clinical trials of drugs. Another section of the bill creates a mandatory clinical trial registry and results database to increase the transparency of those trials. Both of these provisions will make a critical contribution towards increasing the safety of our drugs once they are on the market. But I want to express my deep disappointment that this legislation failed to adopt a compromise that would have provided consumers with much-needed relief from the ever-increasing cost of drugs. Today, we are walking away from a critical and very rare opportunity to make some reasonable adjustments to the windfall profits drug companies receive for conducting pediatric studies under the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act. This is not about whether these pediatric studies should be done. We all agree about that. They are being done now. And there is no question that they would continue to be done if we were to cut back slightly on the term of exclusivity for just the blockbuster drugs that are realizing profits many times over the cost of doing pediatric studies. The Senate did this in its bill and I regret that the compromise agreement we are considering today did not reflect anything from the Senate approach on this issue. In my view, there simply is no justification for rewarding companies with incentives that are far in excess of the actual costs of the studies themselves--often hundreds of times over. I also am deeply disturbed that this legislation fails to remove what is an unprecedented sunset on FDA's statutory authority to require pediatric studies under the Pediatric Research and Equity Act. There is no reason Congress needs to keep revisiting this common sense measure that allows FDA to get critical information about whether new therapies are safe and effective for children--FDA quite obviously needs to have the ability to require that new treatments be tested in children. And there need not be any further discussion about that. So, although I am pleased that we will provide FDA with critical new authorities and resources in this bill today, I must express my deep regret that we failed to take this opportunity to help individuals, businesses, State governments, and insurers who pay the bill for the higher prices that result when generic competition is delayed for these expensive, blockbuster drugs.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to concur with the statement from my colleague, Mr. Bilbray, on his concerns because I share those concerns. It is not before our part of the legislation, but I do share many of the concerns he has raised from a California perspective by the mandate of ethanol. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time on the Oversight and Government Reform sections of this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.