Henry Waxman

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. I can appreciate that. And the Rules Committee has to decide what amendments to make in order or not, and I can see why the gentleman feels aggrieved that he didn't have a chance to offer a further amendment. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Sarbanes-Wolf amendment to H.R. 3221, the New Direction for Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer Protection Act. The Sarbanes-Wolf amendment requires Federal agencies to improve their telework programs to allow more employees to participate in telework. This amendment is a positive addition to the bill we are considering today. Telework plays an important role in reducing energy consumption, air pollution, and traffic congestion. Telework has a number of benefits beyond energy savings, including cost savings for agencies and better scheduling flexibility for employees. Greater use of telework can also allow the Federal Government to function in the event of an emergency, whether it is a natural disaster or a terrorist attack. During Hurricane Katrina, a number of Federal workers were displaced and had to scramble to find alternate worksites. Last year, the IRS headquarters building was closed due to flooding and IRS employees had to work from home or from other offices. Effective telework programs can help agencies better respond to these situations. Yet, despite these benefits, some agencies continue to underutilize telework. In 2000, Congress mandated that each executive agency ``establish a policy under which eligible employees of the agency may participate in telecommuting to the maximum extent possible without diminished employee performance.'' According to the most recent survey by the Office of Personnel Management, only about 119,000 of the approximately 2 million Federal employees participated in telework in 2005. That is even with OPM counting employees who only teleworked once per month. This amendment ensures that every Federal employee is eligible to telework unless they have a job that cannot be done from home or from an alternate worksite. This amendment is needed because although some agencies have successful telework programs, there are agencies that do not appear to be doing all they can to make telework available to employees. For example, according to the Department of Transportation, of the over 43,000 employees that work at the Federal Aviation Administration, only about 13,000 are eligible to telework. That is just 30 percent of FAA employees. There are also agencies that are not doing enough to inform management and employees about telework programs. This amendment addresses one of the biggest challenges to telework identified by agencies, resistance from management. Under this amendment, agencies are required to provide telework training to managers and new employees. This amendment also requires agencies to directly notify employees in writing of their eligibility for telework programs. This amendment will provide needed improvements to Federal telework. This amendment is an important step in reducing the Federal Government's energy use. I urge my colleagues to support the Sarbanes- Wolf amendment.

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.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This provision was a topic for discussion in our committee, and we did try to accommodate some of the current concerns expressed to us. I just want to point that out to my colleague from California. This is obviously a dynamic process, the legislative process. As we move forward, certainly we are open to further discussion. But I think your case was a bit overstated, and I think that we attempted to meet some of your concerns. If we haven't fully done that, we will continue to discuss it.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I wish to yield 1 minute to my colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis). (Ms. SOLIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume in discussion of this bill. I rise in support of the bill and to discuss title VI, the Carbon Neutral Government Act. This title would make our government the world leader in addressing global warming, and it would make government operations dramatically more energy efficient. The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform passed this act on a bipartisan voice vote. To make a difference on global warming, we must be bold and realistic at the same time. The Carbon Neutral Government Act strikes this balance. It sets the ambitious goals that we know are necessary to avoid dangerous global warming. Scientists say we need to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by 2050. This legislation asks the Federal Government to lead the way by reducing emissions to meet annual targets and achieve carbon neutrality by 2050. The Act also has energy efficiency measures to help agencies achieve these goals, drive technology, and save taxpayers dollars. It requires government vehicles to be low-greenhouse-gas-emitting vehicles. It sets ambitious but achievable goals to increase the energy efficiency of Federal buildings, and it strengthens the requirement for agencies to procure energy efficient products. With this Act, the government will use its leadership and its purchasing power to promote a more vibrant and cleaner economy. I urge support for the legislation. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. People should not look for reasons to be against this amendment, they should look for reasons to be for it. It is in our natural interest. It is a win for our environment. It is a win for energy independence. It is a win for our national security. L.A. County is a municipal system. They are reducing 20 percent and diverting it to renewables. Let's recognize when we have more renewable energy, it provides jobs, it provides a better future and a better chance to accomplish what we need to do in this Nation. I congratulate Mr. Platts and Mr. Tom Udall, and urge my colleagues to vote for the amendment.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Mr. Cleaver's amendment. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment to section 6201 of the bill, which is part of the contribution of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee which is a bipartisan one. Section 6201 requires Federal agencies to purchase only low- greenhouse-gas-emitting vehicles for Federal fleets. This provision addresses the Government's contribution to global warming from vehicles which are a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions. Mr. Cleaver's amendment proposes to extend this requirement to cover Congress, as well. This amendment makes sense. It will further reduce greenhouse gas emissions by expanding the use of low-emitting vehicles. It holds Congress to the same standard we are applying to the executive branch. With this amendment, Congress will be taking another step to fight global warming. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, today, I am proud to introduce the Global Climate and Ozone Layer Protection Act of 2007. This bill represents the first significant strengthening of the domestic laws governing ozone depleting substances since the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. I'm pleased that this major step forward is supported by both industry and the environmental community. In May, the Oversight Committee held a hearing on the connection between ozone layer depletion and global warming. These issues are linked because chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) are not only ozone depleting chemicals but very potent greenhouse gases, as well. Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), which are common substitutes for HCFCs, are also strong greenhouse gases. The May hearing focused on the Montreal Protocol, the global environmental treaty that sets legally binding controls on the production and consumption of ozone depleting substances. The Committee learned that, because of the global warming impact of ozone depleting chemicals like CFCs, the Montreal Protocol has provided substantial benefits in mitigating global warming since it was negotiated in 1987. The witnesses explained that the Montreal Protocol will have reduced the total global warming impact from ozone depleting chemicals by about 50 percent in 2010. This reduction will have the effect of delaying these climate-related impacts by seven to twelve years. In other words, without the Montreal Protocol, the world would be about a decade further along the path to dangerous climate change. The Parties to the Montreal Protocol will meet in September to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the treaty and to consider several proposals to strengthen it. This meeting provides an important opportunity to better protect the ozone layer and the climate. The provisions of this bill are intended to realize the full potential of this opportunity. First, the bill includes a sense of Congress provision regarding the upcoming Montreal Protocol negotiations. It states the sense of Congress that the United States should negotiate with the other parties to the Montreal Protocol to maximize the ability of the Protocol to mitigate global warming impacts and to accelerate the phase out of HCFCs in developed and developing countries. Accelerating the phase-out of HCFCs has the potential to produce significant climate benefits at low cost. The phase-out of HCFC-22 and its HFC-23 byproduct alone would have a climate effect equivalent to eliminating nearly one billion tons of carbon dioxide emissions. This figure is equal to roughly half of the total emissions reductions required under the Kyoto Protocol. By fully funding the Montreal Protocol's Multilateral Fund, this accelerated phase-out of HCFCs can be achieved at a small fraction of the cost of achieving equivalent carbon dioxide emissions reductions. Second, the bill closes a legal loophole by banning the importation of any product containing phased-out HCFCs, beginning January 1, 2010. The importation of bulk HCFCs for use in new products is already banned on that date. Third, the bill establishes a mechanism for destroying ozone depleting substances such as those that currently exist in refrigerators and air conditioners before they are released into the atmosphere. The legislation takes a bifurcated approach to ensure the destruction of these chemicals. Beginning January 1, 2010, any person seeking to produce or import an amount of a phased-out ozone depleting substance, considered to be a class I substance under the Clean Air Act, must offset this production or importation by destroying or securing the destruction of three times this amount of ozone depleting substances based on an ozone-depletion potential equivalent basis. The bill takes a more graduated approach with regard to substances deemed to be class II substances under the Clean Air Act, or HCFCs. Beginning January 1, 2012, any person seeking to produce or import an amount of a class II substance must offset this production or importation by destroying or securing the destruction of 1.2 times this amount of ozone depleting substances based on an ozone-depletion potential equivalent basis. The offset ratio for class II substances is increased to a two-to-one ratio in 2015. Another mechanism for addressing banks of ozone depleting substances is the creation of the Refrigeration Environmental Management Council. This nonprofit organization will have a board of directors composed of industry representatives, government officials, and public citizens. It will collect an assessment of 30 cents per pound on new refrigerants in order to provide a $1 per pound incentive for destroying, recycling, or reusing existing ozone depleting substances. Finally, the bill requires the EPA Administrator to promulgate regulations extending existing recycling requirements governing CFCs and HCFCs to substitutes for these chemicals. The effect of this provision will be to require EPA to finalize the June 11, 1998, proposed rule on this subject. Collectively, these provisions will have a tremendous impact. The bill addresses ozone depleting substances that have yet to be produced as well as existing banks of substances that may yet be emitted into the atmosphere. The bill addresses older CFCs as well as newer HCFCs. And the bill addresses international negotiations as well as domestic initiatives. According to the Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy, an industry coalition made up of some 50 companies and trade associations, the proposed refrigerant management program is projected to reduce annual greenhouse gas emissions by 81 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. It will also annually reduce approximately 6,000 tons of ozone depletion potential. By 2015, it is projected to generate approximately $1 billion to fund incentives for recovery, reclamation and destruction of refrigerant compounds. In its entirety, the legislation should deliver greenhouse gas emissions reductions greater than the global reductions required by the Kyoto Protocol. The Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy has been extremely cooperative and creative in this process, and I am grateful for their support. This industry has been an important player in the global ozone protection effort for more than two decades. The members of the Alliance have played a critical role in making the Montreal Protocol and implementation of Title VI of the Clean Air Act the successes that we are celebrating this year. The Alliance's support for efforts like the Refrigerant Environmental Management Council indicates a willingness to help achieve important environmental goals in economically sensible ways. I'd also like to commend the Natural Resources Defense Council. As a premier environmental group with expertise in both the Montreal Protocol and climate change issues, their expertise was invaluable in developing this legislative proposal. The dramatic benefits from this consensus, balanced bill are the result of a process that started with state-of-the-art science and then explored common-sense, cost-effective measures. There are a few matters that came up during our discussions that are worth noting for the record. First, as is clear under section 601 of the Clean Air Act, the definition of ``produce,'' does not include substances that are entirely consumed in the manufacture of other chemicals. This definition is important in understanding which chemicals will require destruction offsets under Section 5 of the legislation. Second, the recycling requirements under Section 6 are not intended to apply to foam, which is evident from the plain language of the legislation. Finally, the fire suppression provision in Section 4 is intended to address a specific problem that applies to one chemical that is used for fire suppression. It is the stakeholders' understanding that a fire suppression chemical which is currently used in aviation applications is scheduled to be phased out in 2015. Unfortunately, the alternatives to this chemical are currently much worse from a climate change perspective. Since this application represents only 22 ozone depletion potential tons from 2015 to 2030, the legislation would grant the Administrator the authority to permit its continued use as long as no better alternatives are available. Global warming is an enormous challenge. To fight global warming, we will need to examine every sector of our society. We'll need to increase energy efficiency. We'll have to reduce emissions from transportation and electricity generation. We'll need to move away from the dirty technologies of the past and embrace new, clean technologies. I hope my colleagues will support the Global Climate and Ozone Layer Protection Act of 2007 so that we can begin to take those steps.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, funding for the Food and Drug Administration is incredibly important--FDA oversees products that make up one quarter of all consumer spending in the U.S. and it is vital to protecting the public health. But for all that we ask of this agency, I am concerned that we do not give FDA what it needs to do its job. For years, FDA has been underfunded--its costs have risen dramatically while its appropriations have barely increased. In fact, the number of staff at FDA has actually dropped since 2003, despite rapidly expanding burdens. I know that the chairwoman is a staunch defender of food safety, and I share her concerns. I have my own doubts about whether this administration is doing all that it can to protect our food supply. But I also know that FDA cannot keep our food safe if it doesn't have the people to make decisions or conduct inspections. Because FDA's food programs do not involve user fees, unlike the drug and device programs, food safety is one of the most neglected functions at the agency. Partly as a result of this shortage, FDA's ability to ensure a safe food supply is severely limited. The effect of this is simple: Less money for food safety means fewer staff working to protect the food supply; fewer inspections; a diminished ability to respond to outbreaks, and--most important--a limited ability to develop policies that can prevent future catastrophes. FDA is facing a shortfall of crisis proportions, and I believe that greater funding is imperative. We ask a great deal of FDA, and we need to support it with the funds necessary to do its job. I know that the chairwoman has taken the first step in this bill to reverse the trend of shortchanging FDA. But I think we can do more to begin restoring FDA to its proper role. That will require a multi-year commitment to greater funding. I recognize that Chairwoman DeLauro is concerned about existing problems at FDA and I share her concerns. My committee's investigations of FDA have identified significant problems at FDA, some of which have nothing to do with funding. For example, we've seen political interference in scientific decisionmaking and a failure to conduct vigorous enforcement of the law. Both of these interfere with FDA's ability to protect the public health, and they cannot be fixed with money alone. But these issues are matched with problems that are purely a matter of resources. I think we need to provide greater resources for FDA at the same time that we provide greater oversight. Currently, the Senate bill appropriates $1.75 billion to FDA, with $522 million for food safety. The House bill appropriates roughly $57 million less than that overall, and $48 million less for foods. I think the Senate level of funding is a good start to restoring FDA to its proper level of funding. I urge the chairwoman to seek the highest level of funding that is feasible in conference. As I said, I think this will be a multi-year effort, and I would like to work with the chairwoman on restoring FDA in the years ahead with even greater funding.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I may hereafter be considered as the first sponsor of H.R. 1172, a bill originally introduced by Representative Millender-McDonald of California, for the purposes of adding cosponsors and requesting reprints pursuant to clause 7 of rule XII.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, for goodwill, I would see it a wise course of action to give additional time, since the minority requests it, but I wouldn't be prepared to give them that time now. The reason we are starting so late today on this bill is because we have been interrupted with procedural votes to delay us from debating this issue. In our own committee, the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from Texas said he had a lot of people from our committee who wanted to speak on the issue. They wouldn't let us debate any single issue of merit. They made us read the bill, to frustrate the committee from meeting at all. Let's renew this request for additional time later as a reward for good behavior, if we can see some good behavior. But right now, to this point, I haven't seen a lot of good behavior from the other side.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to object.

Mr. WAXMAN. I object.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chairman, I write today in opposition to the Weldon amendment to the Labor/HHS appropriations bill. This amendment would prohibit appropriated funds from being used to administer thimerosal- containing flu vaccine in the 2008-2009 flu season to children under 3. This legislation is strongly opposed by a number of public health groups including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Public Health Association, the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, the National Association of County and City Health Officials, the Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). According to public health officials, this language would pose real risks to public health, particularly to the youngest children who are most susceptible to the serious complications from flu, including death. The American Academy of Pediatrics, in their letter opposing this amendment, assures us that there is scientific evidence that ``the thimerosal in influenza vaccine is not a danger to health.'' The Institute of Medicine examined all of the available evidence on the association between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism. In 2004 the I0M issued a report that concluded that the evidence was sufficient to say that thimerosal-containing vaccines do not cause autism. Since that time there has been no new compelling evidence that would change the I0M's conclusion. In fact, because thimerosal has been removed from all other pediatric vaccines, children in the last 5 years have received much less thimerosal than they had in the 1990s, and yet autism rates continue to go up, not down. The practical impact of the bill would be that the demand for thimerosal-free vaccine would exceed current production capacity. While technically the bill would prohibit only the youngest children who get Vaccines for Children vaccine from getting thimerosal-containing vaccine, the reality is that the message Congress would be sending to all parents is that the thimerosal-containing vaccine is less safe than the thimerosal-free vaccine. It is likely that most, if not all, parents would demand thimerosal-free vaccine for all of their children. There are simply not enough doses of thimerosal-free vaccine to meet that kind of demand and it is unlikely that there would be for at least several years. Vaccine companies are moving to increase the production of thimerosal-free vaccines, but doing so requires building new facilities, or expanding existing facilities, and then going through a new FDA approval process. Furthermore, there is currently only one company with a licensed thimerosal-free product for children under 3. If that company experienced production problems or delays in its thimerosal-free product, this would leave us without any vaccine for this population. Even if there were sufficient vaccine to immunize all children under 3 with thimerosal-free vaccine, we have a private vaccine distribution system and there would be no way to ensure that each dose of thimerosal-free vaccine would be matched up with a child under 3. In recent years there have been shortages of flu vaccine. In order to make sure that those most susceptible to the flu get vaccinated, CDC has asked that vaccine be given first to priority groups, including very young children, the elderly, health care workers, and people with certain illnesses. Unfortunately, we have seen that this has not worked very well. There is no reason to believe that the system would work any better to make sure that the thimerosal-free vaccine goes first to children under 3. In fact, there is nothing that would prevent one state from buying up all of the thimerosal-free vaccine for its population leaving the rest of the country without vaccine for the youngest children. That could cost lives. These are the children who are most susceptible to the serious complications from flu. I urge Members to consider that this language could harm those very children the authors are trying to help. By restricting their access to flu vaccine, they will not prevent a single child from getting autism, but they may expose children to the very serious risks posed by influenza.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, one year ago today, Hezbollah militants executed a brazen cross-border attack on an Israeli patrol that killed three and kidnapped Israeli reservists Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev. Weeks before, on June 25, Hamas terrorists infiltrated Israel from Gaza, killing two and abducting Corporal Gilad Shalit. Earlier this year, I had the opportunity to travel to the region with Speaker Nancy Pelosi. With each Arab leader our delegation pressed the plight of these soldiers. The Speaker personally handed their dog tags to Syrian President Assad and urged him to act on a humanitarian basis to achieve their swift and unconditional return. Sadly, these three brave soldiers join a longer list of MIAs that includes Zachary Baumel, Yehuda Katz, Zvi Feldman, taken hostage in 1982, and Ron Arad, an Israeli military pilot taken captive in 1986. As long as they are missing, their families, the people of Israel, and supporters of Israel around the world hold a constant vigil praying for their return. I want to recognize the dedicated work of the United Jewish Communities, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, and a multitude of synagogues, camps and schools around the country for their efforts to make sure these soldiers are not forgotten. ``Leave no soldier behind,'' is the mantra of many armies. In a nation as small as Israel, where military service is mandatory, the commitment to rescue POWs and MIAs is a national imperative. It is our responsibility as a fellow democracy and steadfast ally to do all we can to help win their freedom.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, Anti-Israel propaganda has reached a new low, with a renewed campaign by a group of British academics to boycott Israeli academics and universities. Spearheaded by the British University and College Union, the initiative calls on British academics to refrain from collaborating on research with Israeli counterparts or working with journals published by Israeli companies. It is incumbent upon the United States to oppose this assault on academic freedom and stand against efforts to isolate Israeli institutions. While I am encouraged that there is little support for this initiative beyond a vocal and extreme minority, it appears that similar undertakings have been attempted by British unions representing journalists and government workers. I welcome the bold statements by the UK Education Minister and university presidents across the United States condemning this misguided crusade. Those who sincerely believe in the cause of peace should encourage dialogue, cooperation, and the free exchange of ideas. It is disappointing that the Palestinian trade unions promoting these kinds of boycotts are more interested in promoting prejudice than in building a future of coexistence. With this resolution, let us raise our voices in solidarity with Israel and reaffirm the fundamental values of academic freedom.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. It is becoming increasingly clear that FDA needs more of two things; it needs more resources and more authority. This is particularly true in the area of post-market drug safety. We are all familiar with the series of high profile drug safety problems with drugs like Vioxx and Avandia. It is no secret that FDA's ability to protect the safety of our drugs is in serious jeopardy. H.R. 2900 makes significant strides in getting FDA both the authorities and resources to improve its oversight of drug safety. I am pleased this bill incorporates many of the provisions in a bill that I introduced with Representative Markey called the Enhancing Drug Safety and Innovation Act of 2007. Our bill incorporates many of the recommendations of a high-profile study by the Institute of Medicine. For example, it will give the FDA the ability to require post-market studies and labeling changes, as well as the ability to impose significant civil monetary penalties to ensure that these things get done in an appropriate and timely way. Another section of the bill would establish mandatory clinical trial registry and results databases. This would bring much-needed transparency to the clinical trials conducted on our fellow citizens and will prevent drug and device companies from hiding negative trial results that cast their products in a negative light. I do regret that one of the most important recommendations made by the IOM was stripped from the committee-reported bill: that Congress give FDA the authority to restrict direct-to-consumer advertising of new drugs with unknown safety risks. If a new drug is heavily marketed as a result of direct-to-consumer ads and a serious risk does emerge, many people will have been unnecessarily exposed to that risk. Similarly, I regret H.R. 2900 does not contain a provision to appropriately tailor the period of exclusivity that blockbuster drugs receive in exchange for conducting pediatric trials under the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act. We all share the goal of ensuring that our children get the same benefit from FDA approved drugs and all medical devices, as do adults. But we must make sure that the American consumers are not paying an unjustified price tag for those tests. Nevertheless, the bill as a whole makes significant contributions to the work of the FDA and deserves our support. I do want to emphasize that the FDA will need a significant influx of resources to do what we are asking them to do in this bill. Although H.R. 2900 gives FDA the enhanced ability to dedicate user fee dollars to these activities, it will be critical for Congress to come forward with additional appropriated dollars. We simply have got to get FDA the funds it needs to do their job well. Every day, Americans rely on FDA to protect them from dangerous medicines and devices. Today, we have the opportunity to take a critically important step toward ensuring that FDA can fulfill this mission. Mr. Speaker, I encourage Members to support the bill.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, over the past week, the country did a collective double-take, as one commentator said, when they heard that Vice President Cheney does not believe he is part of the executive branch. That's why Representative Emanuel has proposed his amendment today. This issue first came to the public's attention last week when I wrote to the Vice President asking why he blocked efforts by the National Archives to conduct security inspections of his office, as required by the President's own executive order. The response was that the Vice President's office was not an entity within the executive branch. Legal experts ridiculed this argument, and late-night comics got some good new material. But the Vice President's extreme aversion to any oversight whatsoever, by Congress or even by his own Administration, is not a laughing matter. The Vice President has claimed special privileges that even the President doesn't have. The Vice President has unilaterally claimed an absolute exemption from inspections, while other White House offices comply with the executive order. Take the National Security Council, which is an entity within the White House. It had the wisdom to allow an inspection. The fact is, until the Vice President took this unprecedented stance, nobody at the White House had ever blocked any security inspections by the Archives. And this is not the only time the Vice President has acted to prevent oversight. He went to court to stop GAO from examining the actions of his energy task force. He blocked the Secret Service from disclosing visitors to his residence. In fact, he even refused to provide information to Congress about his employees for the annual Plum Book. His argument is--and I quote--``The Vice Presidency is a unique office that is neither a part of the executive branch nor a part of the legislative branch, but is attached by the Constitution to the latter.'' Even school children know this is preposterous. The reality is that since 2002, there's been no oversight, no monitoring, and no reporting in the Vice President's office. That's an invitation to exactly the kind of leaks and criminal violations that have occurred in Mr. Cheney's office. We are a government of laws and rules, not arbitrary decrees. The Vice President can't unilaterally decide he is his own branch of government and exempt himself from important, commonsense safeguards for protecting classified information. And he can't insist he has the powers of both the executive and the legislature branches, but the responsibilities of neither. The Vice President is not above the law.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the Sessions amendment to H.R. 2829, the Financial Services Appropriations bill. H.R. 2829 includes a provision to help restore equity to the contracting process by preventing private contractors from having an unfair advantage over Federal Employees when competing for Federal jobs. The Sessions amendment would eliminate that provision from the bill and would continue the administration's policy of playing politics with the civil service system. The rapid increase in procurement spending in recent years has brought the size of the ``shadow government'' represented by Federal contractors to record levels. We must stop the misguided effort to send Federal jobs to private contractors at any cost. H.R. 2829 is an important step in that direction. H.R. 2829, specifically section 738, ensures that Federal employees have the right to compete fairly for their jobs before they are privatized. The bill prevents contractors from gaining an unfair advantage by not providing comparable health and retirement benefits. H.R. 2829 also ensures that agencies, not OMB, have the discretion to decide whether a public-private competition is appropriate. H.R. 2829 gives Federal employees the right to appeal privatization decisions--a right that contractors already enjoy. We saw this in the Army's reversal of its 2004 decision to allow the in-house Federal workforce at Walter Reed Army Medical Center to perform support services at Walter Reed. When the competing private contractor protested the Army's decision, the Army reversed its decision and resolved the A-76 process in favor of the contractor. If the Army had initially decided in favor of the contractor, the employees would have had no similar right to protest. This is about fairness. The administration's policy under Circular A- 76 puts private contractors on third base before Federal employees even get a turn at bat. Section 738 of this bill helps level the playing field. The Sessions amendment would strip this important language from the bill. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Sessions amendment.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment by the gentleman from Virginia. The Office of Special Counsel is a little-known agency with an important mission: it protects Federal whistleblowers from retaliation and enforces the Hatch Act, the law that prevents Federal officials from using Federal resources to engage in partisan politics. Last month, the Special Counsel issued a report highly critical of Lurita Doan, the GSA Administrator. The Special Counsel found that during a briefing for certain GSA employees by the White House Deputy Director of Political Affairs, the Administrator encouraged her subordinates to engage in partisan political activity. Here's what the Republican-appointed Special Counsel had to say about this incident: The GSA Administrator displayed no reservations in her willingness to commit GSA resources, including its human capital, to the Republican Party. Her actions, to be certain, constitute an obvious misuse of her official authority and were made for the purpose of affecting the result of an election. One can imagine no greater violation of the Hatch Act than to invoke the machinery of an agency, with all its contracts and buildings, in the service of a partisan campaign to retake Congress and the Governors' mansions. Currently, the Special Counsel is investigating whether Karl Rove and other White House officials violated the Hatch Act by holding numerous other political presentations at over 20 Federal agencies across government. Now, this amendment would take $1,000,000 from the Office of the Special Counsel. I have had serious disagreements with the Special Counsel in the past, but I have never proposed cutting the budget of this small agency. The Office only has a budget of about $16 million, so a cut of this magnitude could have a devastating effect. We need more enforcement of the Hatch Act and more protection of Federal whistleblowers--not less. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Davis amendment.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I support the Miller-Sanchez amendment to H.R. 2829, the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008. The Miller-Sanchez amendment would prohibit OMB from using the funds appropriated in this bill to implement Executive Order 13422. Executive Order 13422 was issued on January 18, 2007. The Administration's rationale for this Executive Order, which amends Executive Order 12866, is that it will improve the way the government does business. What this Executive Order really does is to create new opportunities for politicization and delay in the regulatory process and make it harder for agencies to take virtually any action. This Executive Order makes a significant change in policy by giving OMB authority over agency guidance documents. Agencies issue guidance for a variety of reasons such as providing safety warnings or helping the public understand how to comply with a particular requirement. Agencies will now have to get OMB approval of any guidance document that is considered ``significant.'' This means that OMB will have the opportunity to second-guess the decisions of agency experts and that agencies will be delayed in, or blocked from, getting important information out to the public. Executive Order 13422 also requires agencies to designate a presidential appointee as a ``Regulatory Policy Officer'' who will have significant authority. Unless specifically authorized by the agency head, an agency cannot ``commence'' a rulemaking without the approval of the Regulatory Policy Officer. This means that a political appointee will be in the powerful position of vetoing or indefinitely delaying a rule, even when the rule is needed to carry out Congress' directives. This will slow down agency action even further and invite the politicization of agency decisions. Executive Order 13422 will make it harder for agencies to issue common sense safeguards to protect health, safety, and the environment. With the Miller-Sanchez amendment, Congress is sending the message that this is not a good way to govern. I urge my colleagues to support the Miller-Sanchez amendment.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the University of California, Los Angeles for winning its 100th NCAA championship. UCLA is the first university to reach this historic milestone through the hard work and dedication of gifted young student-athletes and their coaches. Beginning with the university's first NCAA championship in tennis in 1950, 16 different men's and women's athletics programs have contributed to these 100 championships, establishing an unparalleled record of excellence. The most recent championship victory was achieved when the women's water polo team captured the 2007 NCAA title. For the talented young women of the water polo team, this represents their third consecutive championship and fifth overall. Madam Speaker, while this is an occasion to commend these athletes, their coaches, the athletics staff, and the fans who proudly wear the blue and gold, we should recognize not only their athletic achievements, but also UCLA's outstanding tradition of nurturing student-athletes who excel both on and off the field and the contributions they make to their communities as they do so. I am proud and delighted to congratulate UCLA on this occasion. Go Bruins.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I am proud to recognize the 11th World Congress on Civic Education, which will take place in Buenos Aires, Argentina, May 17-21. The conference, hosted by Conciencia Argentina and the U.S.-based Center for Civic Education, will welcome delegates from over 60 countries, including leaders of civic education organizations throughout the world. Participants will discuss best practices for imparting the knowledge, skills, and values necessary for democratic citizenship to students living in established and emerging democracies. Through a national and international network of individuals, organizations, educational institutions, and governmental agencies, Civitas International Programs have responded for more than a decade to the wave of democratization sweeping through Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union, Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Civitas International Programs are directed by the Center for Civic Education and funded by the U.S. Department of Education under the Education for Democracy Act. They are implemented by the U.S. State Department and USAID, in cooperation with nongovernmental and governmental institutions in the United States and abroad. The goals of the Civitas International Programs are to: Acquaint international educators with exemplary curricular and teacher training programs in civic education developed in the United States and other participating nations. Assist international educators in creating, adapting, implementing, and institutionalizing effective civic education programs in their own countries. Create and implement civic education programs for students in the United States that will help them better understand the history and experiences of both established and emerging democracies. Facilitate the exchange of ideas and experiences in civic education among educational, governmental, and private sector leaders in the United States and other countries. Encourage independent research and evaluation that will determine the effectiveness of civic education in providing students with the knowledge and character traits essential to the preservation and future progress of democracy. I applaud the outstanding achievements of the Civitas International Programs, and wish the delegates to the 11th World Congress on Civic Education much success in their continued efforts throughout the world in developing a political culture supportive of democratic values, principles, and institutions.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1873, the Small Business Fairness in Contracting Act, would make a number of improvements to the preferences given small businesses in Federal contracts. The bill is the product of much hard work by both the Small Business Committee and the Oversight Committee and reflects our consensus view on many important issues, and I would like to thank Chairwoman Velazquez and the Small Business Committee for working with us to address their legitimate concerns and to reach the correct balance in this bill. I would also like to commend Congressman Braley, a member of both the Small Business and Oversight Committees, for his leadership on this issue. I also thank the ranking member of the Oversight Committee, Congressman Tom Davis. The bill represents a delicate balance between appropriate assistance for small businesses through the Federal acquisition system and the overriding purpose of the system, which must always be to ensure that taxpayers get the best value for their money. The bill also starts us on the path of addressing the current contracting preference enjoyed by Alaska Native Corporations. These groups can be awarded Federal contracts of any size without competition. To address these concerns about ANC contracts and promote competition in contracting, the bill includes a provision which would give Congress until the end of the year to adopt legislation addressing sole-source contracting by Alaska Native Corporations and economically disadvantaged Indian tribes. If we fail to act during this ``placeholder'' period, the bill would then require the administration to consult with Alaska Natives and Indian tribes to establish an appropriate limit on the size of the sole-source awards to these groups. In crafting this provision, I have worked closely with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), who is Democratic Chair of the Congressional Native American Caucus; and at this time I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy.