Henry Waxman

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. What this provision provides is if somebody is personally and substantially involved in that contract, they should not be then going out and working for the contractor. I just think that is improper. There ought to at least be a cooling-off period. We do not think they can never go work.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much for yielding to me. I just want to point out that I think my good friend from my same State, former chairman of the Armed Services Committee, now the ranking member, protesteth too much. He complained that they have to award a contract right away and that this bill would prevent it. Well, we have already pointed out that that is not the case at all. A contract can be awarded on an emergency basis; but after a year, there ought to be competition. He thought that sounded good once we explained it to him on the floor. Then he said, well, there is another provision that he dislikes and that is the fact that somebody who awards a contract cannot go to work for the contractor. Well, that provision was narrowed, and it was narrowed to say it had to be a senior person, and it also had to be someone who was personally and substantially involved in awarding the contract. Now, a lot of these contracts are determined by political appointees. For example, we learned that the Halliburton no-bid contract to restore oil in Iraq was signed by the contracting civil servant, but the decision was made by a political appointee. The gentleman's name is Michael Mobbs. He decided that Halliburton ought to get that contract and that there should not be competition. He even went before a committee of principals, including Scooter Libby representing the Vice President, and suggested to them this is the way the contract ought to be awarded, and the contract was awarded. He argued that it needed to be awarded at that time to that contractor, they would do the job. Should he be allowed to go within a year and go sign up as an employee for Halliburton? I do not think he should be permitted. All we say is there ought to be a cooling-off period. We do not say he never could go work for Halliburton, but I think it is unseemly to have him go right from that position to go work for Halliburton. Now, I must say from those who tell us everything is going great in Iraq, they are also telling us today on the House floor everything has gone well with contractors in Iraq. I must submit that things have not gone well, unless you do not mind hundreds of billions of dollars in questioned costs, in overcharging by a contractor to bring in gasoline from Kuwait, having a contractor charge for $45 for Cokes or $50 for laundry, obscene kind of expenditures. Things have not gone well. That is why we need more oversight, and that is why we need this important reform legislation.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I understand that my colleague, Representative Cardoza has concerns about the use of the confidential business information exemption within the Freedom of Information Act to withhold information about Federal contracts from the public. I understand Mr. Cardoza's concern and want to work with him to ensure that the public has access to this type of information under FOIA. Yesterday, the House approved legislation that will strengthen FOIA and ensure that agencies apply a presumption of disclosure when considering requests. I believe that yesterday's bill, along with the bill we are considering today, are steps in the right direction. But, neither bill directly addresses my colleague's concerns related to overuse of FOIA's exemption four. I have an ongoing interest in strengthening the Freedom of Information Act and certainly want to work together with Mr. Cardoza to accomplish his important goal of ensuring public access to information about federal contractor performance. I have agreed to work with Mr. Cardoza to request that GAO conduct an examination of agency use of exemption four. A report from GAO could clarify what is currently being withheld from the public under this exemption, and how much of that information is actually a trade secret or is truly confidential. This report will inform us as we move forward.

Mr. WAXMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, as I understand the gentleman from Utah's amendment, it would require a Federal agency that expects to award a sole source contract to a foreign company based in a country known to sponsor terrorist activity to notify Congress 30 days prior to the award of that contract. This seems to me to be a good idea. Congress should know if no-bid contracts are going to countries that sponsor terrorism. So I support the amendment. I think it makes a lot of sense. What Congress does after they get this information will remain to be seen. There may be some justification for it, but I would certainly want to know, as this Member of Congress, speaking on my own behalf, and I think others would feel the same way if such a sole source contract was going to be awarded.

Mr. WAXMAN. As I understand the way we wrote this bill, it would have to be a person at a senior level who is substantially involved in the awarding of the contract. I don't think being on a range is an awarding of the contract.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am not in opposition to the amendment, but I wish to claim the time that would go to the Member in opposition.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Castle amendment. There are currently no Federal ethics laws that apply to contractor employees. This is particularly problematic because contractors are providing more and more services that used to be performed by Federal service personnel. In many agencies today, one can tell the difference between a Federal employee and a contractor only by the color of his or her badge. One area where this can cause real problems is in the contracting workforce. A company providing contract oversight services to the government may be overseeing a company and working as a subcontractor to that same company in the private sector. Clearly such a situation would cause conflicts of interest. The amendment offered by Mr. Castle would require the Office of Government Ethics to report to Congress with recommendations on requiring contract employees to be covered by Federal financial and conflict of interest laws. I support this amendment and urge all of my colleagues to support it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have time still available if any Member wishes me to yield to him or her.

Mr. WAXMAN. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I urge support for the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. WAXMAN. Members could have different views about the underlying question, and that is whether universities should be able to exclude military recruiters. It is not a new issue to be considered on this floor. We have voted on this many, many times. Some universities have taken the position that they don't want military recruiters on their campus because the military is not an equal opportunity employer based on the ``don't ask, don't tell'' policy. I happen to think that universities that take this position are right. But that is not the reason I oppose this motion to recommit. I oppose it because I have heard the arguments made by my colleagues many, many, times that we shouldn't exclude somebody from competing from a contract on extraneous bases. Why should we exclude a university from being able to compete in a government contract when they might be the ones who can save the lives of our troops? After all, the bioshield program has given money, Federal dollars to universities to try to develop ways to get us vaccines that will stop the impact of anthrax or smallpox. Are we going to say that a university that develops such a vaccine will not be able to compete for a contract to sell that vaccine because they don't want recruiters on their campus because they object to the don't ask, don't tell policy? That doesn't make any sense. People ought to be able to compete for contracts based on what they can do if they are selected to perform that contract. Are we going to exclude people for extraneous reasons? I don't think that makes sense. So I think if you look at it carefully, when you recognize that the work being done at universities can be so important in so many different ways, that we should just arbitrarily exclude them. I think we have all said over and over again in the debate on this bill, we don't like sole-source contracts. We want competition. We want market forces. Well, sometimes you need a sole-source contract in an emergency. Well, then we say at least a year later, let's have competition. But if we adopt this amendment, from the very beginning we will not allow competition if it involves competition from a university unless they have a longstanding position of being pacifists, and then we will let them compete. But if they have a different position, but they also have the ability to compete and to provide a service that can save our country from terrorism, save our military from disease, save the American people the consequences for which we need them to perform in that contract, we are going to exclude them. I urge opposition. I know Members will feel a lot of pressure on this because it can be used in a 30-second ad, that Congressman So-and-So voted to allow universities to exclude military recruiters. Well, I don't think that is really what this amendment is doing. It is excluding universities from competing for contracts, even if they can, in awarding that contract, provide vital services and that maybe no one else can provide. So I urge opposition to the motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the instructions of the House in the motion to recommit, I report H.R. 1362 back to the House with an amendment.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 1362, the Accountability in Contracting Act.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut for yielding to me and for managing this legislation. It will be the first of a number of bills that we think are important for openness, transparency, accountability and sunshine in government. This particular legislation has strong bipartisan support. The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) introduced it originally several years ago, and we are building on his proposal. It is a wise proposal because it would provide for disclosure of contributions that are made for Presidential libraries. There is nothing wrong with contributing to Presidential libraries, but at the present time contributions to Presidential libraries can be of any amount, from my source, and they need not be disclosed. This is a loophole that calls for abuse. Whether it is real or perceived, we should not have special interest groups making contributions to a Presidential library with the expectation that they may receive something in return. We should not allow foreign governments even to contribute to Presidential libraries. This legislation would require disclosure of contributions that are made to Presidential libraries and their affiliates. It is interesting to see that in recent years Presidential libraries and their affiliated institutions have grown and become increasingly expensive. It cost more than $80 million, although I even think that is a lot of money, but that was what it cost to build the George H.W. Bush Library. President Clinton went and doubled that amount, and it took $165 million to build his library. There are recent reports suggesting that the projected fund-raising target for this President Bush's target library is $500 million. I think that we ought to have disclosure, as do my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. It is time for openness and sunshine in the area of these contributions, and I strongly support it. I want to commend all of the people who have been involved in this legislation, the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Clay; the ranking member, Mr. Turner, and all of those involved.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. I thank the gentleman from Iowa for yielding me the time and for managing this bill. He has played a very important role in the committee in the formulation of this legislation and is far more knowledgeable than many of us because he has had experience in bringing whistleblower lawsuits as an attorney. Mr. Chairman, this bill that we are considering at this time would strengthen one of our most important weapons against waste, fraud and abuse, and that is Federal whistleblower protections. Protecting whistleblowers is a key component of government accountability. Federal employees are on the inside. They can see where there is waste going on or if there is corruption going on. They can see the signals of incompetent management, and what we want is to enable them to let us know, those of us in Congress, about these kinds of problems. So this bill would give them the protections to come forward and, in effect, blow the whistle on what they know is going on and is not right to be continued. But I want to emphasize that one of the most important provisions of H.R. 985 protects national security whistleblowers. It is impossible to overstate how essential this provision will be. Now, there may be an attempt to try to strike this provision, and I want to make clear to my colleagues why they should not be misled into voting for such a motion. There are a lot of Federal officials who knew the intelligence on Iraq was wrong. Officials in the CIA and the State Department knew that Iraq did not try to import uranium from Niger. Officials in the Energy Department knew the aluminum tubes were not suitable for nuclear centrifuges. Other officials knew the information from ``Curveball,'' the so-called informant that turned out to be inaccurate, but the information that he was spreading about so-called mobile weapons labs were completely bogus. But none of these officials would come forward. In fact, none of them could come forward to Congress and share their doubts. If they did, they could have been stripped of their security clearances, or they could have been fired. And we all know what the result has been. Nobody blew the whistle on the phony intelligence that got us into the Iraq war. It is imperative that national security employees be protected against retribution so they will not be afraid to report national security abuses to Members of Congress. When the intelligence is wrong, the consequences for our Nation can be immense. H.R. 985 also extends whistleblower protections to employees of Federal contractors. Every year, Federal contractors do more and more of the government's work. In 2005, nearly 40 cents of every Federal dollar, outside of the entitlements, went to private companies. We need to encourage the employees of these private companies to report wasteful spending. We heard testimony in our Oversight Committee about a Halliburton truck driver, not just one but many of them, who were told, if they had a flat tire or some mechanical problem, not to worry about it, torch the truck. They will just go and buy another one. After all, these were cost-plus contracts. Well, this abuse was so wanton that one of the truck drivers finally blew the whistle. But rather than being protected for speaking out for the American taxpayer, he was fired. Finally, passage of this bill would stop this kind of intimidation. This legislation includes an important provision that will help check the growing problem of political interference with science. It gives explicit provisions to protect the Federal employee who reports instances where Federal scientific research is suppressed or distorted for political reasons. Don't buy the argument that this should be struck. We ought to protect scientists from those that would try to suppress or distort their scientific work. The bill is bipartisan. It was cosponsored by Ranking Member and former Chairman Tom Davis of the Oversight Committee and former subcommittee Chair Todd Platts. It passed unanimously last month by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. It is carefully crafted legislation that protects both our national security and the interests of the American taxpayer, and I urge its adoption. Mr. Chairman, I am including with my statement copies of letters between my Committee, Oversight and Government Reform, and the Committee on Homeland Security regarding jurisdiction. House of Representatives, Committee on Homeland Security, Washington, DC, March 14, 2007. Hon. Henry Waxman, Chairman, Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Washington, DC. Dear Henry: I am writing you considering the jurisdictional interest of the Commttee on Homeland Security in H.R. 985, the ``Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2007.'' Section 12 of this legislation provides whistleblower protections to Transportation Security Administration (TSA) employees. Under House Rule X, the Committee on Homeland Security has jurisdiction over the ``[t]ransportation security activities'' of the Department of Homeland Security and ``[o]rganization and administration of the Department of Homeland Security.'' As a result, the Committee on Homeland Security has a jurisdiction interest in section 12 of the bill. Moreover, the Committee on Homeland Security received a sequential referral of a nearly identical bill, H.R. 1317, the Federal Employee Protection of Disclosures Act, legislation that was introduced by Rep. Todd Platts (R-PA) in the 109th Congress. Although the Committee on Homeland Security has sought a sequential referral of H.R. 985, the Committee agrees to discharge the legislation in the interest of clearing this measure as expeditiously as possible for consideration in the House. As a condition to our agreement to forgo a markup of this legislation, you have agreed to include report language to accompany the bill that clarifies the congressional intent behind that the term ``public safety'' in 5 U.S.C. 2302 (b)(1),(8), and (9), as amended by H.R. 985, is meant to cover ``national security'' and ``homeland security.'' This clarification will ensure that TSA employees who report security risk, in addition to safety risks or mismanagement issues, will still receive the whistleblower protections granted under the bill. Additionally, you have agreed to include report language to accompany Section 10 of the bill to ensure Department of Homeland Security employees who work on intelligence and information-sharing matters are covered by the ``National Security Whistleblower Rights'' granted under that section. Our agreement not to hold a markup is also conditioned upon our mutual understanding that our decision to waive further consideration does not, in any way, reduce or otherwise affect the jurisdiction of the Committee on Homeland Security over provisions of the bill. Additionally, you have agreed to support the request of the Committee on Homeland Security to have its members named as conferees in the event of a conference with the Senate on this bill. I ask that you please include in the Congressional Record during consideration on the floor, a copy of this letter and a copy of your response acknowledging the Committee on Homeland Security's jurisdictional interest in this bill and indicating your support of our agreement expressed in this letter. Sincerely, Bennie G. Thompson, Chairman.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for yielding to me and the fine work he and his subcommittee have done with this legislation. I also want to commend the gentleman from Ohio, the ranking member of that subcommittee. Mr. Speaker, this bill also builds on a bipartisan proposal that came to light in the last Congress, and I think it fits well within the theme of many of the bills that we are pursuing this week, openness in government. The bill has a straightforward goal. It ensures that future historians have access to Presidential records as the Presidential Records Act intended. This law was adopted after the Watergate scandals to underscore the fact that Presidential records belong to the American people, not to the President, not to his family, but to the American people. It has been a bipartisan proposal from the very beginning. In fact, this bill had bipartisan support not only from Mr. Clay and others, but Mr. Platts and Mr. Burton. The act said that these records would be available to researchers and the general public in a timely manner. This was the rule for over two decades, but in 2001, President George W. Bush issued an executive order that turned the Presidential Records Act on its head and gave Presidents the authority to keep their records out of the public eye. The Bush order gives both current and former Presidents nearly unlimited authority to withhold Presidential records from public view or to delay their release indefinitely. It allows a designee of former Presidents to assert executive privilege after the President's death, and for the first time, it gives former Vice Presidents the authority to assert privilege over their own documents. In short, this gives former Presidents and their heirs the ability to control their legacy and determine what information will be available to history. That undermines the entire purpose of the Presidential Records Act. Historians and scholars need access to Presidential records so that there is an accurate record of a President's term in office and not an alleged version based on what the President chooses to share. During Sunshine Week this bill fits in so well, because it would make sure that information about government and government activities is open to public scrutiny. It is an essential component of this open government agenda. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, protect historical research, and vote for this bill.

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, history is important because it informs us of events of the past, so we can learn from those events, not to make the same mistakes or to follow good examples that turned out to be successful. History always is an ongoing process. It is a process of looking at facts and reinterpreting those facts, often in light of current events and matters that are before the researchers at the present time. But there are those who would like to rewrite history for their own purposes, and to the extent that we can keep that from happening, I think this bill goes a long way. It would allow the records, the raw information, to be available, let those who want to interpret those events do so as they see fit; and in doing so, by making these records available to scholars and the public, we can find out the information that we didn't know at the time the events were taking place: what motivated certain decisions, what other factors were being considered, what was going on that led to certain conclusions. There are books now being written about the present day, how we got into Iraq, what we had hoped to do, what we still hope we can accomplish, what the thinking was of those who led us into the adventure. Many of the books have been praiseworthy, and most of them have been quite critical. But it won't be until the judgment of history that we will be able to fill in many of the gaps that remain. So, at some point, Presidential records help scholars fill in those gaps. That is why I think it is so worthwhile to have this information available, at least at a time when there is some historical perspective. Many times it is after the President has passed on, but certainly long after the President's administration. During the Nixon period, President Nixon thought that the records belonged to him, and he sought, as I recall, a tax break for donating his records to a nonprofit organization. He felt he could control those records. Well, I think the American people looked at that and said, wait a minute, some things are his, the President's, to do with as he sees fit, but some things don't really belong to him. They belong to the American people. They belong to scholars. They belong to history. And the Presidential Records Act was adopted because of that concern. It has worked well for several decades, and it is only when we saw the executive order presented by President George W. Bush that some of the concerns have been raised because that Presidential order overturned the one that was put into effect by President Reagan implementing the post-Watergate legislation. So I wanted to use this additional time to give some historical background to this matter. We heard from many scholars, as the chairman of the subcommittee indicated, who set out the reasons why they thought it was important to be able to get this information, the Archivist, Mr. Weinstein, Presidential scholars like Mr. Dallek and Mr. Reeves, particularly, who have written about recent Presidents, urged us to adopt this legislation. And I am pleased that now we are considering it. And it is important, it is a good government bill, and we are doing it in the appropriate way, in a bipartisan spirit where we vote together on the committee. And I commend all those involved. And I know now, because I have just been informed, that the next bill is ready for consideration of the House.

Mr. WAXMAN

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

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Clay, the chairman of the subcommittee, and I thank the gentleman from Ohio, the ranking member of the subcommittee. Mr. Speaker, I first of all have to express my regret in response to the complaint that, while we have openness in government, we had an amendment to this bill suddenly presented to the minority. And let me explain why that happened. The legislation before us was completely bipartisan in committee. I don't think anybody voted against the bill passing out of our committee, for all the reasons that both the Chair of the subcommittee and the ranking member described, and I would like to get into those substantive issues as well, because this is the best known and most important of the freedom of information that people look to when they want to be able to find out what government is doing. It is called the Freedom of Information Act for that reason. But we did not have presented to us in committee any objection to the fact that there is a score on this bill of $7 million. But because there is a score, we found out last night that there might be an objection to the bill; and we didn't want to have an objection to the bill, possibly cause people to come to the floor and vote against something as important as the Freedom of Information Act. So we added an amendment to the bill that simply provided that the $7 million, which, by the way, is only expended if the government is sued and loses and has to pay the penalty owed to people for withholding the information. But because there is a $7 million score, we added to this bill that there would be nothing paid unless there is an appropriation of that money. So the bill would not be scored as costing any money at all. I wish we had more time to bring this to everyone's attention, but no one brought to our attention in the committee that there was concern about this score. Nevertheless, this bill goes to the heart of the public's access to find out information about what its government is doing. And as we look at what we have designated ``Sunshine Week,'' we are considering this legislation to improve and strengthen this vital law. H.R. 1309 has been in effect for 40 years, but yet we have a dozen provisions that will increase public access to information under FOIA. These provisions will help FOIA requesters obtain timely responses to their requests, reduce the backlogs at agencies, increase transparency in agency compliance, and provide an alternative to litigation for requesters who are facing delays or denials. In addition, this bill will restore an important element of the Freedom of Information Act, the presumption of disclosure. Through memoranda issued in 2001 and 2002, the Bush administration discouraged agencies from releasing any document if they could find a technical reason for withholding it. This bill before us today reverses this policy by codifying the presumption of disclosure. Under this bill, agencies will revert to their former policies that emphasized public disclosure and supported the withholding of information only when the agency could foresee a harm from disclosure. This is an important change that will ensure continued public access to government information. The bill is a bipartisan bill, it is an important bill for openness in government, and I urge my colleagues to support the legislation.

Mr. WAXMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and I just want to say what is seldom said on the House floor, that I agree with you. And we tried to correct the problems so that we didn't make the error that would have violated our PAYGO principles. And I thank the gentleman for pointing it out, and I think you have raised a very good point and we should all be mindful of it, including the points about the deficit, which I strongly think we need to deal with. So we will have differences about that, but I do want to show my agreement with your basic statement.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize two remarkable and accomplished women who are being honored as Women of Valor by the West Coast region of the American Committee for Shaare Zedek Medical Center in Jerusalem. Honey Kessler Amado and Judith Podolsky are both being named Women of Valor at a concert by the world-renowned Klezmer musician Giora Feidman on the evening of March 14, 2007, in Beverly Hills, California. I cannot imagine more deserving recipients of this honor. Honey Kessler Amado has been keenly active in the Jewish community since college, when she served as a religious schoolteacher under her mentor and rabbi, Rabbi Mordechai Soloff. Honey became active in the Los Angeles Jewish community soon after her marriage to Ralph Amado, 30 years ago. She is now a central figure in the Los Angeles Jewish community and is regarded as an expert on issues affecting the community. She first worked in the Soviet Jewry movement, during which time she and Ralph traveled to the Soviet Union to visit Refusenik Jews. Her involvement and passion for the issue led her to become chair of the Commission on Soviet Jewry of the Community Relations Committee of the Jewish Federation Council. Honey's work in Soviet Jewry led to her involvement in the Jewish National Fund, where she served as a regional and national officer. She also served as co-chair of the Jewish Feminist Center of the American Jewish Committee (AJC). She currently sits on the regional and national boards of the American Jewish Committee and serves as co-chair of AJC's regional International Relations Committee. Honey also serves on the speakers' bureau and the Synagogue Advisory Council of Jewish World Watch, and on the board of the Los Angeles Jewish Symphony. At her synagogue, Temple Isaiah in West Los Angeles, she sits on the board of trustees and serves as chair of the Jewish World Watch Committee, having chaired and sat on several other committees of the synagogue. In 2002, Honey was a member of a 9-person delegation from the AJC to go to Germany as a guest of Germany's Konrad Adenauer Foundation to address post-Holocaust relations between Germans and Jews and between Germany and Israel. In September 2005, she was invited to return to Germany as a representative of the AJC on an Adenauer Foundation delegation observing the campaign of the CDU/CSU party in Germany. This past December, Honey volunteered through Sar-EI (Volunteers in Israel) to work for two weeks on an Army base in Israel. Honey and Ralph have three children: Jessica, Micah and Gabrielle. They have an extended circle of family and friends, which includes Esther, an Ethiopian law student they have been sponsoring through the North American Conference on Ethiopian Jewry, and Brenna, a young Navajo child in New Mexico Honey mentors through Futures for Children. Judith Podolsky has both volunteered and offered her professional services to the Jewish community for many years. She has been a tremendous fundraiser for numerous causes and is regarded as the consummate fundraiser for Israel. Judy has received awards from the Masorti Foundation, the Schecter Institute, the University of Judaism and the Los Angeles Human Rights Commission for her remarkable contributions. Judy has played an historic role in the Los Angeles Jewish community. She served as the first female President of a Los Angeles area synagogue--Beth Kodesh (now Shomrei Torah). In addition, she has served as the vice president of the Women's League for Conservative Judaism. Judy is a member of the Executives Support for the Associates/IMC Support Groups of the Los Angeles Jewish Home for the Aging. She is also a member of the Los Angeles Human Rights Advisory Commission and a lifetime member of Hadassah. After 18 distinguished years as one of Jewish National Fund's most successful and beloved staff members, Judy enjoyed a brief retirement. She has recently joined the staff of the American Committee for the Shaare Zedek and is responsible for attracting one of the largest gifts ever received by the Medical Center. Judy is a beloved, admired and respected mother, sister, aunt. She is a confidant to countless others. Her husband Stanley and her extended family will be with her to receive this prestigious award. I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Honey Kessler Amado and Judith Podolsky for their tireless dedication to the Los Angeles Jewish community and in congratulating them on being named Women of Valor by the West Coast Region of the American Committee for Shaare Zedek Medical Center in Jerusalem.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 74. This resolution will encourage research into Hydrocephalus, a chronic and often devastating neurological condition. Hydrocephalus affects an estimated one million Americans--which classifies it as a rare disease. And, unfortunately, like so many other rare diseases, insufficient resources have been directed toward it. Individuals with this disease are forced to undergo ``shunting,'' a highly invasive surgical procedure that carries with it serious safety risks. This procedure also takes a heavy toll on our entire health-care system, costing an average of $35,000 per procedure. We can avoid paying this price. With more research and focus on this disease, better treatment--and perhaps even a cure--is within our reach. Patients can be spared the trauma of brain surgery and American citizens can avoid paying more than a billion dollars each year for this treatment. The NIH has already taken some positive steps toward this goal. By initiating a collaborative effort among 7 NIH institutes and sponsoring a major national conference, the NIH has begun the work that must be done. Now we need to send a strong statement that we want this work to continue. Cures for rare diseases like Hydrocephalus will never be found unless we increase our effort and follow the scientific promise. We can start with this vote today.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. I thank my good friend for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, this administration has mishandled the situation in Iraq from the very beginning. It misled the country into a war based on false and misleading statements about the threat from Iraq. It failed to plan for the aftermath of the military victory. It assumed that we would be greeted as liberators, the occupation would be brief, and that Iraq would pay for its own reconstruction. It sent our troops to battle with dangerous shortages in body armor and devices needed to defuse remote-controlled bombs. It sent in too few troops to Iraq to provide security, leaving the Iraqi people to rely on their sectarian militias to give them some protection from the chaos. It disbanded the Iraqi army and, through an anti-Baathists campaign, gave the Sunnis a sense that the U.S. was aiding the Shiites against them. It refused to take on war profiteering, even as auditors, investigators and inspector generals unearthed massive graft, fraud and abuse by reconstruction contractors. It alienated the Iraqi people with the shameful and criminal acts of Abu Ghraib prison. What we now have in Iraq is a defeat. We cannot achieve the illusions of the Bush administration that we will be able to create a stable, unified, liberal democracy in Iraq that is pro-American. Instead, we have sectarian fighting, death squads and a destabilized Middle East that threatens to be engulfed by the nightmare that we have unleashed. The administration's mistakes have weakened our fight against al Qaeda. In fact, the war has enhanced the group's terrorist recruitment. The planned escalation in Iraq will divert more troops, resources and attention from the pursuit of Osama bin Laden's operation in Afghanistan; and we have enhanced the influence of Iran, not just in Iraq but throughout the region. The President proposes an escalation of a failed policy. The fighting now only prolongs our losses and blocks the way to a new strategy. We are trying now to mediate a civil war, which is impossible. Instead, we are being drawn into that civil war by trying to prop up a government that, in the final analysis, cannot unite the country. Politically, this administration has tied the faith of American soldiers to a Shi'a-dominated government that lacks the authority, the will and the manpower to stop the roving gangs and insurgent militias that have shattered Iraqi society. Instead of acknowledging these failures and embarking on a new course of action, the President gives us more of the same: Send more troops to Iraq. We need to redefine our mission and our hopes for ``success.'' Our goal should be to try to stabilize the situation, stop the killing, contain the violence. We cannot do it alone, and we cannot do it militarily. We must seek a diplomatic strategy with Iraq's neighbors and the international community. Certainly, it will take more action than just the resolution before us to bring about the policy changes that we need. The Congress must stand ready to use the checks and balances necessary to extract ourselves from the morass we face in Iraq. We can do that through more oversight, but it is also time for Congress to use the appropriations process to end this war. We should pass this resolution and make it clear to the President that we will not stand for more of the same.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, this bill is noncontroversial. It relates to a situation in Los Angeles where prohibition was put in place to prevent tunneling in an area that has been designated as a high risk for methane gas explosions. The bill before us would repeal that prohibition about tunneling, because, at the request of Mayor Villaraigosa, we agreed to convene a panel of experts to assure us that it is technically feasible to handle the tunneling in a very safe manner, that the technology is there and that we need not fear the tunneling as we might have, appropriately so, in the mid-1980s. In 2004, the L.A. City Council passed a motion urging reversal of this 1985 law, and in February of 2005, the LAMTA board renewed discussions of the subway expansion in this area. I strongly support this legislation. There is no opposition to it. I appreciate the committee having reported out unanimously, and I would urge my colleagues in the House to agree with the proposal coming from the committee. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 238 is noncontroversial legislation. In the last Congress, it was reported unanimously by the House Transportation Committee and passed the House by voice vote. H.R. 238 would repeal a law enacted in 1985 that prohibits subway tunneling in a part of Los Angeles I represent. I authored the 1985 legislation after a methane gas explosion demolished a Ross Dress-for- Less store in the Third and Fairfax area of Los Angeles. After the explosion, serious safety concerns were raised about the city's plans to extend the subway in this area due to underground pockets of methane gas. In recent years, experts have indicated that technologies have been developed that could make tunneling in the area safe. In 2004, the Los Angeles City Council passed a motion urging a reversal of the 1985 law, and in February 2005 the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority's board voted to renew discussions of the subway's expansion in this area. As a result, I worked with Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa to select a panel of scientific experts to conduct an independent safety review. These experts made a unanimous determination in a November 2005 report that tunneling in the methane gas area can be done safely if proper procedures and appropriate technologies are used. H.R. 238 simply lifts the Federal tunneling prohibition that has been in place since 1985. I urge my colleagues to support it.