Henry Waxman

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. I think the gentleman makes a number of excellent points about the sorry history of Indian policy in the United States. I agree with him that the intent of this provision is to start a dialogue which can recognize the legitimate concerns of Alaska Natives and American Indians, while at the same time preserving the integrity of the Federal contracting process. I congratulate the chairwoman of the Small Business Committee and thank her for her willingness to work with us

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, each year on April 24, Armenian communities around the world gather in somber commemoration of the genocide that began in 1915. Sadly, after 92 years, their grief is only compounded by those who aggressively deny or raise doubt about this troubling chapter of history. This should be a day reserved for honoring the memory of those who were killed and paying tribute to the strength of those who survived. It should be a time to reflect on the personal narratives of those who were exiled, the historical evidence of villages and communities that were destroyed, and diplomatic cables from U.S. officials that described the atrocities. It should be an opportunity to resolve ourselves to fight crimes against humanity in all forms and all places. Instead, year after year, April 24 unleashes a battle of semantics. Those who acknowledge what happened in Armenia as a ``tragedy,'' a ``catastrophe,'' or a ``massacre'' are correct. But nothing other than the term ``genocide'' can wholly characterize the systematic deportation of nearly 2 million Armenians and the deliberate annihilation of 1.5 million men, women and children. Anything short of that is unfair to those who perished and unhelpful to our plight against future acts of genocide.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, today we are considering a bill that will help bring democracy to the District of Columbia. H.R. 1905, the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007, will grant the District of Columbia a full vote in the House of Representatives. District of Columbia residents have been denied full representation in Congress for over 200 years. District residents pay billions of dollars in federal taxes yet get no vote in Congress. District residents have fought in every war our Nation has faced yet get no vote in the House of Representatives. This bill will help right this longstanding injustice. There have been two champions of this legislation who deserve recognition. Congresswoman Norton has worked tirelessly on behalf of her constituents to forge a compromise that has bipartisan support. Representative Tom Davis, the Ranking Minority Member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, has led the charge for voting rights for the District. The District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act includes a number of important provisions. It will increase the size of the House by two seats. One seat will go to the District of Columbia and the other to Utah, the next state in line to get a congressional seat. The bill also prevents partisan gerrymandering by creating the new seat for Utah as an at-large seat and by ensuring that Utah does not redistrict its other congressional seats until after the apportionment following the 2010 census. H.R. 1905 also contains a nonseverability clause providing that if a court holds one section of this bill invalid or unenforceable, all other sections will be invalid or unenforceable. This is an important safeguard because it means that no part of this bill can have legal effect unless the entire bill does. Under this legislation, Utah cannot be granted a seat in the House without the District also being granted a seat or vice versa. H.R. 1905 is a step in the right direction toward providing the residents of the District fair representation in Congress. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise to congratulate New Directions, a remarkable program located in the congressional district I represent, on celebrating its 15th year. New Directions is a superb veterans' service organization located on the West Los Angeles Veterans Affairs property. Started by Toni Reinis and John Keaveney 15 years ago in a small rented house, it has grown to encompass four facilities totaling 223 long-term residential treatment beds for homeless veterans and their dependents. New Directions has become a national model for the successful treatment of veterans battling co-occurring disorders--mental illness and substance abuse. Over the past 15 years, New Directions has been responsible for assisting over 8,000 homeless veterans and their families in getting back on their feet and reintegrated into our community. New Directions provides a comprehensive network of therapeutic services to assist veterans. Veterans living at New Directions are given job training and placement assistance, parenting and money management classes, legal and financial assistance, remedial education and resources for alumni. Residents leave New Directions with a job, housing, a savings account, computer skills, renewed self-confidence and the support of mentors and peers. Under Toni and John's guidance, veterans undergo astounding, life-altering transformations. As veterans enter the building, the first thing they see is a plaque on the outside of the building that refers to New Directions as ``The Last House on the Block.'' Veterans arrive often feeling they have bottomed out and are without hope of overcoming their challenges. New Directions offers them another chance to turn their lives around. Los Angeles has the largest population of homeless veterans in the Nation. An estimated 24,000 veterans live on the streets of Los Angeles. Many of them suffer from co-occurring disorders, post- traumatic stress disorder--PTSD--as well as chronic medical problems. New Directions welcomes these veterans and offers them a safe environment to address their challenges. I want to thank and acknowledge Toni and John for the tremendous contributions they have made to veterans these past 15 years. Their dedication and commitment are inspirational. They have helped rebuild countless lives and for that we owe them a debt of gratitude. I ask my colleagues to join me in sending our highest praise and thanks to Toni Reinis and John Keaveney on celebrating the first 15 years of New Directions.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize J. Lloyd ``Bud'' Jacobs, Jr., a remarkable educator who is retiring from the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) after 38 years of service. Bud Jacobs, who earned a Bachelor of Arts degree at the University of California, Berkeley and a Master of Arts degree from the University of California, Los Angeles, began his career with LAUSD as an English teacher at Fremont High School. He later worked as an instructional advisor for Regional Administrative Region C-LAUSD and an as assistant principal at Bret Harte Intermediate School, John Muir Middle School, and Venice High School. From 1992-2000 Bud Jacobs was principal of Venice High School, which Newsweek Magazine rated as one of the top 100 high schools in America. Venice High School also received presidential recognition for 2 National Science Bowl championships. Since 2000, he has served as director of instructional support services for LAUSD's high school programs. Bud Jacobs has been honored as an outstanding administrator by the Association of California School Administrators and the California Council for the Social Studies. In addition to his career with LAUSD, Bud Jacobs served as a fellow with the Institute for Learning at the University of Pittsburgh and with the Harvard Principals' Center. He has been a trustee for the Los Angeles Educational Alliance Reform Now (LEARN) and president of UCLA's School of Education Alumni Support Group (EUCLAN). Bud Jacobs has earned the profound respect and affection of students, teachers and administrators within LAUSD. The Los Angeles community owes him a debt of gratitude for his dedication to our students and tireless commitment to educational excellence. I congratulate him on his extraordinary contributions and wish him good health and happiness as he embarks on this new chapter in his life.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, today we have an opportunity to begin the end of American military involvement in Iraq. I am so troubled by the war that I'm tempted to vote no on the supplemental spending bill (H.R. 1591) and claim a moral victory. But our actions have consequences. If the war's opponents side with its proponents to defeat this bill, we will have won a moral victory at an unacceptable cost. It will give the President and our Republican colleagues the result they're hoping for. They know if the bill fails, the House will pass legislation to give the President a blank check to do whatever he wants in Iraq. H.R. 1591 contains legally binding language that will force the President to begin redeploying troops by March 2008 and to completely withdraw them by September 2008. It is the only legislation with a realistic chance of passing that will extract us from the war. H.R. 1591 makes sure that we give our troops and veterans support they desperately need. It includes significant increases in funding for healthcare services, troop readiness and protection, and military housing. It will fix the scandalous situation at Walter Reed Hospital. And, it requires overdue reforms in Iraq contracting. The Bush Administration is pursuing a failed, delusional policy. We cannot stabilize Iraq alone and we cannot do so militarily. We must find a diplomatic solution with Iraq's neighbors and the international community. H.R. 1591 puts us on that path, and I urge Members to vote for it.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, as I understand the Chair's ruling, this is no different than any other proposal on a bill where the vote could be postponed under the rule. That has been, I point out to my colleagues, done on numerous occasions.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding to me. Today, we are considering a bill that will bring democracy to the District of Columbia. This bill will grant the District of Columbia a full vote in the House of Representatives. They have been denied full representation in Congress for over 200 years, and this will help right this long-standing injustice. But I want to use my time to point out that there have been two champions of this legislation who deserve recognition. One is Congresswoman Norton who has been working tirelessly on behalf of her constituents to forge a compromise that has bipartisan support; and the second is the ranking member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and its former Chair, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis). Last year as chairman of our committee, he led the charge for voting rights for the District. It was his inspiration that brought this compromise to the point now where I expect this bill will pass the House of Representatives and go on its way to the other body. This is a bill that is long overdue. I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this bill. H.R. 1433, the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007, will grant the District of Columbia a full vote in the House of Representatives. District of Columbia residents have been denied full representation in Congress for over 200 years. District residents pay billions of dollars in federal taxes yet get no vote in Congress. This bill will help right this longstanding injustice. There have been two champions of this legislation who deserve recognition. One is Congresswoman Norton, who has worked tirelessly on behalf of her constituents to forge a compromise that has bipartisan support. The second is the Ranking Minority Member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Representative Davis. Last year, as Chairman of the Committee, he led the charge for voting rights for the District. The District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act includes a number of important provisions. This bill will increase the size of the House by two seats. One of those seats will go to the District of Columbia and the other seat will go Utah, the next state in line to get a congressional seat. The bill prevents partisan gerrymandering by creating the new seat for Utah as an at-large seat and by ensuring that Utah does not redistrict its other congressional seats until apportionment is conducted following the 2010 census. H.R. 1433 also contains a nonseverability clause providing that if a court holds one section of this bill invalid or unenforceable, all other sections will be invalid or unenforceable. This is an important safeguard because it means that no section of this legislation can have legal effect unless the entire bill has legal effect. Under this legislation, Utah cannot be granted a seat in the House without the District also being granted a seat or vice versa. H.R. 1433 is a step in the right direction toward providing the residents of the District fair representation in Congress. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield my time to be managed by the gentlelady from the District of Columbia, soon to be, her voters willing, the actual Representative of the District of Columbia in every way possible.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to be the sponsor of this resolution to authorize the use of the Capitol rotunda on April 19, 2007 for the annual congressional ceremony to commemorate the Holocaust. The United States was one of the first countries to adopt a national day for Holocaust commemoration. It is one of the only nations in the world to observe Yom Hashoah, Holocaust Heroes and Remembrance Day, on the same day chosen by the State of Israel--the Hebrew anniversary of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising. Each year, on Yom Hashoah communities around the United States come together to memorialize the millions who perished. We remember the heroism of those who fought back and pay tribute to the survivors and the tremendous courage and strength it took for them to rebuild their lives. We stand against the anti-Semitism and intolerance that fed the Nazi machine and sadly continues to resurface today. While this resolution may be routine by nature, it is a testament to the commitment of Congress to make sure that the history of the Holocaust is never forgotten or repeated. I would like to thank the House administration for its work on this legislation. I encourage all of my colleagues to participate in the ceremony in the rotunda.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I am pleased today to join over 125 of my House colleagues in reintroducing the Safe Climate Act. As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recently announced, the fact that the planet is warming is now unequivocal. And the human role in this is no longer in debate. The planet is at a crossroads, and it is time for us to choose to act. I originally introduced this legislation just 9 months ago today. At that time, I discussed how there are different approaches that can be taken to climate legislation. Some bills seek a symbolic recognition of the problem. Others are premised on what may be politically achievable in the near term. The Safe Climate Act was drafted on a different premise: It reflects what the science tells us we need to do to protect our children and future generations from irreversible and catastrophic global warming. The bill has aggressive requirements to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. But the reality is, these are the reductions that scientists say we need to achieve to preserve a safe climate for future generations. No one had yet proposed legislation that aimed to solve the climate crisis, and I wasn't sure how my colleagues and others would respond to this proposal. However, in just 9 months, there has been remarkable progress in building consensus on this approach. During the last Congress, I was pleased that 113 members decided to cosponsor my legislation. I was particularly delighted that Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi decided to endorse the bill. Then in January of this year, a coalition of environmental groups and companies joined together in calling for emission reductions that are consistent with the reductions required by my legislation. This coalition, calling itself the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, is made up of Alcoa, BP America, Caterpillar Inc., Duke Energy, DuPont, Environmental Defense, FPL Group, General Electric, Lehman Brothers, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, PG&E Corporation, PNM Resources and the World Resources Institute. And many others, including such diverse entities as states, American workers, small businesses, religious congregations and outdoors enthusiasts, are all urging comparable levels of emissions reductions. All of these groups recognize an important truth--global warming is the greatest environmental challenge of our time, and we have a short window in which to act to prevent profound changes to the climate system. Unless we seize the opportunity to act now, and act decisively, our legacy to our children and grandchildren will be an unstable and dangerous planet. The science clearly tells us what we need to do--we must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, starting now and continuing over the next few decades. To achieve this, we have to grow our economy into a new and cleaner future. It's simply too late for legislative baby steps. I have been working to address the threat of global warming for many years. Over 10 years ago, the science and the threat of global warming were clear. That's why I introduced the Global Climate Protection Act of 1992, which would have frozen U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide at 1990 levels. But Congress failed to act. Now our understanding of global warming has only grown stronger. We're actually experiencing the effects of climate change today. And they are not good. As the earth warms, its ice is melting. From the glaciers in Glacier National Park, to the snows of Kilimanjaro and the Larson B iceshelf in Antarctica, ice that has been here since the last ice age is disappearing or already gone. Accordingly, sea levels will rise, posing enormous challenges for our coastal communities. The permafrost supporting towns and roads in Alaska is melting rapidly, and the summer sea ice in the Arctic Ocean is diminishing each year. These are changes we can see with our own eyes. The seasons are changing--maple sugar producers in Vermont are tapping trees earlier, plants are flowering earlier, and birds are migrating earlier. These changes are happening across the globe. And with warmer weather come bugs that are no longer being killed by the winter cold, such as the beetles that are destroying forests across the Southwest and Alaska. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recently confirmed that we have already observed climate-related changes in extreme weather including droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves and the intensity of tropical cyclones. The year 2005 broke hurricane records, and America experienced the devastating results of just a few such storms with Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The scientists have been proven right about global warming, over and over again, across the planet. We should start listening to them. Now they are telling us that we have about 10 years to act to avoid being locked into irreversible global warming on a scale that will transform the planet. The scientists have identified a global temperature rise of just 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit as enough to produce undeniably dangerous consequences, such as 20 feet or more of sea level rise, which would flood large parts of Florida and New York City, as well as huge population centers in other countries. And scientists have calculated the quantity of atmospheric greenhouse gases that would very likely cause such a temperature rise. The nations of the world must keep greenhouse gases below that level to avoid irreversible dangerous global warming. The United States emits more greenhouse gases than any other country in the world--about 20 percent of the total worldwide. We simply cannot avoid catastrophic global warming without substantial cuts in U.S. emissions. Of course, every nation will have to do its part. According to the best science, under any plausible scenario of future international actions to stabilize the climate, the United States will eventually need to reduce its emissions by about 80 percent. Fortunately, we have some time to get there, as long as we start reducing our total emissions now. And that's what the Safe Climate Act does. It caps U.S. emissions in 2010, and then gradually reduces them by just 2 percent per year until 2020. This gives us over a decade to deploy the cleaner technologies that we already have but aren't using much, such as hybrid vehicles and wind power. After 2020, emissions must fall under the legislation by roughly 5 percent per year, as more advanced technologies, such as biofuels from waste materials and capturing carbon dioxide from power plants, become widely available. The Safe Climate Act reduces emissions through a flexible, market- based emissions trading program, as well as complementary requirements for cleaner cars and more electricity from renewable energy and efficiency. The Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy would oversee these programs nationally, while States would retain their authority to act on the State level. In effect, the Safe Climate Act sets the targets and then unleashes market forces and American ingenuity to solve the problem. This sounds ambitious, and it is. But it is also completely doable, once we decide to act. Look at what we've already achieved. In just over 30 years, from the passage of the Clean Air Act in 1970 to 2002, the total air pollution from all automobiles was reduced by over 60 percent. We achieved these reductions even as the total number of vehicle miles traveled increased by 160 percent and GDP grew by 166 percent. From 1990 to 1996, in just 6 years, we ended production of key chemicals destroying the Earth's protective tropospheric ozone layer and shifted to substitutes. Those chemicals had been widely used throughout the economy in applications from air conditioning and refrigeration to solvents and fire suppression. In each case, entrenched industries told Congress that changes of these magnitudes would be impossible to achieve without massive economic dislocation. And in each case, they were wrong. Our Nation has made dramatic advances in technology that have transformed our lives. We can do it again in developing new innovations for transportation and energy production. The Safe Climate Act will give the market the incentives necessary to unleash American ingenuity and solve the problem. We've ignored the threat of global warming for almost too long, but we still have an opportunity if we act now. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this critically important bill, and I urge the committee of jurisdiction to consider it without further delay. We must face and overcome the challenge of global warming, and the Safe Climate Act is the way to do it.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is left on each side.

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume of the time that has been reserved to us. The bill before us, H.R. 1362, the Accountability in Contracting Act, would increase transparency and accountability in Federal contracting, limit the use of certain types of abuse-prone contracts and promote integrity in the acquisition workforce. Under the Bush administration, spending on Federal contracts has exploded in size. The Federal Government spent $175 billion more in Federal contracts in 2005 than it did in 2000, making Federal contracts the fastest growing component of the Federal budget. The Federal Government now spends nearly 40 percent of discretionary spending on contracts with private companies, a record level. This surge in contract spending has enriched private contractors like Halliburton, but it has come at a steep cost to taxpayers through rising waste, fraud, abuse and mismanagement. Spending on sole source and other noncompetitive contracts has more than doubled in the last 5 years. The administration has justified the awarding of these lucrative sole source contracts by citing urgent and compelling needs, but then they allow these contracts to continue years after the emergency has passed. Cost reimbursement type contracts leave the taxpayers vulnerable to wasteful spending by providing contractors with little or no incentive to control costs. But between 2000 and 2005, the use of this type of contract has risen by 75 percent. The administration has also hidden contractor overcharges from Congress, international auditors and the public, impeding oversight and diminishing accountability. Too often, the independence of procurement of officials has been compromised by illegal relationships with government contractors. Darleen Druyun, the former chief acquisition official for the Air Force, negotiated a lucrative deal to lease aircraft from Boeing in exchange for future employment. All of these problems have been compounded by an insufficient acquisition workforce to properly award and adequately oversee Federal contracts. H.R. 1362 contains important provisions to rein in out-of-control Federal contracting. It would require Federal agencies to develop plans to minimize the use of the sole source contracts, and it would limit the duration of no-bid contracts issued in emergencies. The bill would also require agencies to encourage the use of fixed- price contracts, which are not as prone to abuse as cost-plus contracts. This provision will allow the growth of contracts to give companies a financial incentive to increase their costs to the taxpayers. When a sole source contract is awarded, agencies are required to prepare a justification and approval document to explain why full and open competition was not used to award the contract. The bill would require those documents to be made public. The bill also promotes transparency in the acquisition process by requiring agencies to report to Congress when auditors identify over $10 million in questioned or unsupported costs. A big and growing problem with the Federal acquisition system is that it has a workforce that is too small and undertrained. The bill requires the administration to develop a comprehensive definition of the acquisition workforce and ensures that funds for training will continue to be available. Finally, the bill includes revolving door provisions that close loopholes in the law, prohibiting contracting officials from negotiating employment for their relatives and establish a cooling off period before procurement officials can award or oversee contracts involving a former employer. All of this is important legislation. This legislation alone will not do the job. We need, however, to continue our oversight, and Congress has already begun many oversight hearings in our committee and in other committees as well. Members are starting to ask what went wrong and to insist on accountability. But this legislation is an important reform in the contracting area. I want to thank my ranking member, Tom Davis, and the chairman and ranking member of the Armed Services Committee for their hard work and efforts in reaching a bipartisan consensus on the bill before us. The Accountability in Contracting Act makes sound commonsense reforms which will improve the transparency and accountability of the Federal acquisition system, and I urge Members to support the bill. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chairwoman, I am pleased to yield 4\1/2\ minutes to a very important member of our committee, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chairwoman, I recognize and yield to a very distinguished member of our committee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) for 3 minutes.

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I would like to now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes), a member of our committee.

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney). (Mrs. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished majority leader of the House of Representatives (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased now to yield 2 minutes to a new member of our committee, but who has been a valuable member and raised a great deal of concern about these issues, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy).

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes. I want to acknowledge the fact that Chairman Tom Davis did more as the chairman of our committee in doing oversight than any other Chair in the House. We did do a lot, but the other committees did not. They didn't want to do oversight. It was as if the Republican leadership of the House decided that if they did too much oversight, they might find embarrassment to this administration. Well, it looks like this administration would now like to keep us from getting embarrassing information about them because they don't like this bill. Oh, we have to give too many reports to Congress; there has to be too much transparency; it is burdensome to have to be open about these contracts. But the fact of the matter is we are spending an incredible amount of money on these outside contracts. And from what we have seen, our taxpayers are not being protected from waste, fraud, abuse and corruption. Just look at what went on in Iraq. Halliburton had contracts for logistical purposes, to restore oil. We were told we needed them to get a contract without any competition because they are the only ones, this is what we were told in the very beginning when we asked why did we get this contract in Iraq with no other competition. We were told, Well, they are the only ones who know how to put out the oil well fires when we go to war. And so they got a contract without competition on a cost-plus basis even though they had a history of overcharging the taxpayers. And then later we found out that they didn't do anything about putting out oil well fires in the first Gulf war; it was Bechtel, not Halliburton. We were told it was civil servants who had done it in giving this award to the contractor. But then we found out it was the political people who did it. Halliburton was given special treatment. Other contractors were given special treatment by not having healthy competition. Competition benefits the consumer. When the government is the payor, the consumer, we are deprived of what market forces can bring. So these contractors got no-bid contracts. I made a proposal on the House floor when we had one of these appropriations bills to say that if any contractor overcharges us $100 million or more, they ought to be barred from future contracts. The chairman at that time of the Armed Services Committee stood up and said, We can't have an amendment like this; we haven't even held hearings on anybody who has charged us over $100 million. Well, why hadn't they held hearings? Why didn't the Armed Services Committee hold hearings? The fact of the matter is in recent years, we have had an enormous outpouring of money spent in Iraq, in homeland security, in dealing with Hurricane Katrina, and we have seen the same mistakes over and over again: No-competition contracts; cost-plus contracts. We have seen what the result has been: Wasted taxpayer dollars. That is why this legislation has been put together. It is a bill to require that if there is an emergency to give a contract, give it. But then have bidding within a year. Gasoline prices charged by Halliburton were considered highway robbery. Parsons built just a handful, 20 of the 142 health clinics they were paid to build. Human sewage leaked out of the roof of a police academy. In Hurricane Katrina, they subcontracted and subcontracted and subcontracted, and finally they paid a guy with a truck to come and take away debris. Every markup of every one of those subcontractors was passed on to the taxpayers. We have had a contract to build a border for our homeland security that cost us billions of dollars that didn't work. We had a contract to help the Coast Guard get state-of-the-art ships, and they didn't meet standards. We need reform in this area. If that is called micromanaging when we want transparency, this is the type of reform we need. We need something we didn't have before: A lot more oversight. We have got to keep people honest. I am shocked when I hear conservatives say they care about taxpayers' dollars, and then don't want competition. I am shocked when they say taxpayers' money is being used wisely, and then we find it is being thrown away. I urge support for this bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, legislation is an organic process. We have negotiated with the minority. We have strong bipartisan support for this legislation. The bill was referred to the Armed Services Committee. They gave us good recommendations which have been adopted unanimously by that committee and incorporated into this bill. The gentleman from Ohio complained there was another change made. There are always changes going on to make the bill better. It will get even better as we move it through the process. Let's pass the bill and work together. Let's stand up for the American taxpayers of this country. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, well, I do. I am surprised you are taking the position you are taking in trying to make it personal but----

Mr. WAXMAN. I think the gentleman is misinformed about what is in the legislation because we do permit under exigent circumstances a no-bid contract to be awarded. We understand there are times that there are emergencies, but we ask that after a year that the contract be put out to bid, that there be competition at least after a year. I see nothing wrong with that. It makes a lot of common sense to me, and you are arguing that we are not responding to the emergency situation when we do.