Henry Waxman

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)2 of Rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, I hereby submit the rules of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform for the 110th Congress. These rules were adopted by voice vote on January 18, 2007, at an open meeting of the Committee. Resolution of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform-- Adoption of the Rules of the Committee--U.S. House of Representatives, 110th Congress, January 18, 2007 Rule 1--Application of Rules Except where the terms ``full committee'' and ``subcommittee'' are specifically referred to, the following rules shall apply to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and its subcommittees as well as to the respective chairs. [See House Rule XI, 1.] Rule 2--Meetings The regular meetings of the full Committee shall be held on the second Thursday of each month at 10 a.m., when the House is in session. The chairman is authorized to dispense with a regular meeting or to change the date thereof, and to call and convene additional meetings, when circumstances warrant. A special meeting of the Committee may be requested by members of the Committee following the provisions of House Rule XI, clause 2(c)(2). Subcommittees shall meet at the call of the subcommittee chairs. Every member of the Committee or the appropriate subcommittee, unless prevented by unusual circumstances, shall be provided with a memorandum at least three calendar days before each meeting or hearing explaining (1) the purpose of the meeting or hearing; and (2) the names, titles, background and reasons for appearance of any witnesses. The ranking minority member shall be responsible for providing the same information on witnesses whom the minority may request. [See House Rule XI, 2 (b) and (c).] Rule 3--Quorums (a) A majority of the members of the Committee shall form a quorum, except that two members shall constitute a quorum for taking testimony and receiving evidence, and one third of members shall form a quorum for taking any action other than for which the presence of a majority of the Committee is otherwise required. If the chairman is not present at any meeting of the committee or subcommittee, the ranking member of the majority party on the Committee or subcommittee who is present shall preside at that meeting. (b) The chairman of the Committee may, at the request of a subcommittee chair, make a temporary assignment of any member of the Committee to such subcommittee for the purpose of constituting a quorum at and participating in any public hearing by such subcommittee to be held outside of Washington, DC. Members appointed to such temporary positions shall not be voting members. The chairman shall give reasonable notice of such temporary assignment to the ranking members of the Committee and subcommittee. [See House Rule XI, 2(h).] Rule 4--Committee Reports Bills and resolutions approved by the Committee shall be reported by the chairman following House Rule XIII, clauses 2-4. A proposed report shall not be considered in subcommittee or full Committee unless the proposed report has been available to the members of such subcommittee or full Committee for at least three calendar days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays, unless the House is in session on such days) before consideration of such proposed report in subcommittee or full Committee. Any report will be considered as read if available to the members at least 24 hours before consideration, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays unless the House is in session on such days. If hearings have been held on the matter reported upon, every reasonable effort shall be made to have such hearings printed and available to the members of the subcommittee or full Committee before the consideration of the proposed report in such subcommittee or full Committee. Every investigative report shall be approved by a majority vote of the Committee at a meeting at which a quorum is present. Supplemental, minority, or additional views may be filed following House Rule XI, clause 2(l) and Rule XIII, clause 3(a)(1). The time allowed for filing such views shall be three calendar days, beginning on the day of notice, but excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays (unless the House is in session on such a day), unless the Committee agrees to a different time, but agreement on a shorter time shall require the concurrence of each member seeking to file such views. An investigative or oversight report may be filed after sine die adjournment of the last regular session of Congress, provided that if a member gives timely notice of intention to file supplemental, minority or additional views, that member shall be entitled to not less than seven calendar days in which to submit such views for inclusion with the report. Only those reports approved by a majority vote of the Committee may be ordered printed, unless otherwise required by the Rules of the House of Representatives. Rule 5--Proxy Votes In accordance with the Rules of the House of Representatives, members may not vote by proxy on any measure or matter before the Committee or any subcommittee. [See House Rule XI, 2(f).] Rule 6--Record Votes A record vote of the members may be had upon the request of any member upon approval of a one-fifth vote of the members present. Rule 7--Record of Committee Actions The Committee staff shall maintain in the Committee offices a complete record of Committee actions from the current Congress including a record of the rollcall votes taken at Committee business meetings. The original records, or true copies thereof, as appropriate, shall be available for public inspection whenever the Committee offices are open for public business. The staff shall assure that such original records are preserved with no unauthorized alteration, additions, or defacement. [See House Rule XI, 2(e).] Rule 8--Subcommittees; Referrals (a) There shall be five standing subcommittees with appropriate party ratios. The chairman shall assign members to the subcommittees. Minority party assignments shall be made only with the concurrence of the ranking minority member. The subcommittees shall have the following fixed jurisdictions: (1) The Subcommittee on Domestic Policy--Oversight jurisdiction over domestic policies, including matters relating to energy, labor, education, criminal justice, and the economy. The Subcommittee also has legislative jurisdiction over the Office of National Drug Control Policy; (2) The Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Postal Service, and the District of Columbia--Federal employee issues, the municipal affairs (other than appropriations) of the District of Columbia, and the Postal Service. The Subcommittee's jurisdiction includes postal namings, holidays, and celebrations; (3) The Subcommittee on Government Management, Organization, and Procurement--The management of government operations, reorganizations of the executive branch, and federal procurement; (4) The Subcommittee on Information Policy, Census, and National Archives--Public information and records laws such as the Freedom of Information Act, the Presidential Records Act, and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Census Bureau, and the National Archives and Records Administration; and (5) The Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs--Oversight jurisdiction over national security, homeland security, and foreign affairs. (b) Bills, resolutions, and other matters shall be expeditiously referred by the chairman to subcommittees for consideration or investigation in accordance with their fixed jurisdictions. Where the subject matter of the referral involves the jurisdiction of more than one subcommittee or does not fall within any previously assigned jurisdiction, the chairman shall refer the matter as he may deem advisable. Bills, resolutions, and other matters referred to subcommittees may be reassigned by the chairman when, in his judgment, the subcommittee is not able to complete its work or cannot reach agreement therein. In a subcommittee having an even number of members, if there is a tie vote with all members voting on any measure, the measure shall be placed on the agenda for full Committee consideration as if it had been ordered reported by the subcommittee without recommendation. This provision shall not preclude further action on the measure by the subcommittee. Rule 9--Ex Officio Members The chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee shall be ex officio members of all subcommittees. They are authorized to vote on subcommittee matters; but, unless they are regular members of the subcommittee, they shall not be counted in determining a subcommittee quorum other than a quorum for taking testimony. Rule 10--Staff Except as otherwise provided by House Rule X, clauses 6, 7 and 9, the chairman of the full Committee shall have the authority to hire and discharge employees of the professional and clerical staff of the full Committee and of subcommittees. Rule 11--Staff Direction Except as otherwise provided by House Rule X, clauses 6, 7 and 9, the staff of the Committee shall be subject to the direction of the chairman of the full Committee and shall perform such duties as he may assign. Rule 12--Hearing Dates and Witnesses (a) Each subcommittee of the Committee is authorized to meet, hold hearings, receive testimony, mark up legislation, and report to the full Committee on any measure or matter referred to it. (b) No subcommittee of the Committee may meet or hold a hearing at the same time as a meeting or hearing of the Committee. (c) The chair of each subcommittee shall set hearing and meeting dates only with the approval of the chairman with a view toward assuring the availability of meeting rooms and avoiding simultaneous scheduling of Committee and subcommittee meetings or hearings. (d) Each subcommittee chair shall notify the chairman of any hearing plans at least two weeks before the date of commencement of the hearings, including the date, place, subject matter, and the names of witnesses, willing and unwilling, who would be called to testify, including, to the extent the chair is advised thereof, witnesses whom the minority members may request. (e) Witnesses appearing before the Committee shall so far as practicable, submit written statements at least 24 hours before their appearance and, when appearing in a non- governmental capacity, provide a curriculum vitae and a listing of any Federal Government grants and contracts received in the previous fiscal year. [See House Rules XI, 2 (g)(3), (g)(4), (j) and (k).] Rule 13--Open Meetings Meetings for the transaction of business and hearings of the Committee shall be open to the public or closed in accordance with Rule XI of the House of Representatives. [See House Rules XI, 2 (g) and (k).] Rule 14--Five-Minute Rule (a) A Committee member may question a witness only when recognized by the chairman for that purpose. In accordance with House Rule XI, clause 2(j)(2), each Committee member may request up to five minutes to question a witness until each member who so desires has had such opportunity. Until all such requests have been satisfied, the chairman shall, so far as practicable, recognize alternately based on seniority of those majority and minority members present at the time the hearing was called to order and others based on their arrival at the hearing. After that, additional time may be extended at the direction of the chairman. (b) The chairman, with the concurrence of the ranking minority member, or the Committee by motion, may permit an equal number of majority and minority members to question a witness for a specified, total period that is equal for each side and not longer than thirty minutes for each side. (c) The chairman, with the concurrence of the ranking minority member, or the Committee by motion, may permit Committee staff of the majority and minority to question a witness for a specified, total period that is equal for each side and not longer than thirty minutes for each side. (d) Nothing in paragraph (b) or (c) affects the rights of a Member (other than a Member designated under paragraph (b)) to question a witness for 5 minutes in accordance with paragraph (a) after the questioning permitted under paragraph (b) or ( c). In any extended questioning permitted under paragraph (b) or ( c), the chairman shall determine how to allocate the time permitted for extended questioning by majority members or majority Committee staff and the ranking minority member shall determine how to allocate the time permitted for extended questioning by minority members or minority committee staff. The chairman or the ranking minority member, as applicable, may allocate the time for any extended questioning permitted to staff under paragraph (c) to members. Rule 15--Investigative Hearing Procedures Investigative hearings shall be conducted according to the procedures in House Rule XI, clause 2(k). All questions put to witnesses before the Committee shall be relevant to the subject matter before the Committee for consideration, and the chairman shall rule on the relevance of any questions put to the witnesses. Rule 16--Stenographic Record A stenographic record of all testimony shall be kept of public hearings and shall be made available on such conditions as the chairman may prescribe. Rule 17--Audio and Visual Coverage of Committee Proceedings (a) An open meeting or hearing of the Committee or a subcommittee may be covered, in whole or in part, by television broadcast, radio broadcast, Internet broadcast, and still photography, unless closed subject to the provisions of House Rule XI, clause 2(g). Any such coverage shall conform with the provisions of House Rule XI, clause 4. (b) Use of the Committee Broadcast System shall be fair and nonpartisan, and in accordance with House Rule XI, clause 4(b), and all other applicable rules of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Government Reform. Members of the committee shall have prompt access to a copy of coverage by the Committee Broadcast System, to the extent that such coverage is maintained. (c) Personnel providing coverage of an open meeting or hearing of the Committee or a subcommittee by Internet broadcast, other than through the Committee Broadcast System, shall be currently accredited to the Radio and Television Correspondents' Galleries. Rule 18--Committee Website The chairman shall maintain an official Committee website for the purpose of furthering the Committee's legislative and oversight responsibilities, including communicating information about the Committee's activities to Committee members and other members of the House. The ranking minority member may maintain an official website for the purpose of carrying out official responsibilities including but not limited to communicating information about the activities of the minority to Committee members and other members of the House. Rule 19--Additional Duties of Chairman The chairman of the full Committee shall: (a) Make available to other committees the findings and recommendations resulting from the investigations of the Committee or its subcommittees as required by House Rule X, clause 4(c)(2); (b) Direct such review and studies on the impact or probable impact of tax policies affecting subjects within the Committee's jurisdiction as required by House Rule X, clause 2(c); (c) Submit to the Committee on the Budget views and estimates required by House Rule X, clause 4(f), and to file reports with the House as required by the Congressional Budget Act; (d) Authorize and issue subpoenas as provided in House Rule XI, clause 2(m), in the conduct of any investigation or activity or series of investigations or activities within the jurisdiction of the Committee; (e) Prepare, after consultation with subcommittee chairs and the minority, a budget for the Committee which shall include an adequate budget for the subcommittees to discharge their responsibilities; (f) Make any necessary technical and conforming changes to legislation reported by the committee upon unanimous consent; and (g) The chairman is directed to offer a motion under clause 1 of Rule XXII of the Rules of the House whenever the chairman considers it appropriate. Rule 20--Subjects of Stamps The Committee has adopted the policy that the determination of the subject matter of commemorative stamps and new semi- postal issues is properly is for consideration by the Postmaster General and that the Committee will not give consideration to legislative proposals specifying the subject matter of commemorative stamps and new semi-postal issues. It is suggested that recommendations for the subject matter of stamps be submitted to the Postmaster General. Rule 21--Panels and Task Forces (a) The chairman of the Committee is authorized to appoint panels or task forces to carry out the duties and functions of the Committee. (b) The chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee may serve as ex-officio members of each panel or task force. (c) The chairman of any panel or task force shall be appointed by the chairman of the Committee. The ranking minority member shall select a ranking minority member for each panel or task force. (d) The House and Committee rules applicable to subcommittee meetings, hearings, recommendations, and reports shall apply to the meetings, hearings, recommendations, and reports of panels and task forces. (e) No panel or task force so appointed shall continue in existence for more than six months. A panel or task force so appointed may, upon the expiration of six months, be reappointed by the chairman. Rule 22--Deposition Authority The chairman, upon consultation with the ranking minority member, may order the taking of depositions, under oath and pursuant to notice or subpoena. Notices for the taking of depositions shall specify the date, time, and place of examination. Depositions shall be taken under oath administered by a member or a person otherwise authorized to administer oaths. Consultation with the ranking minority member shall include three business day's written notice before any deposition is taken. All members shall also receive three business day's written notice that a deposition has been scheduled. Witnesses may be accompanied at a deposition by counsel to advise them of their rights. No one may be present at depositions except members, Committee staff designated by the chairman or ranking minority member, an official reporter, the witness, and the witness's counsel. Observers or counsel for other persons, or for agencies under investigation, may not attend. A deposition shall be conducted by any member or staff attorney designated by the chairman or ranking minority member. When depositions are conducted by Committee staff attorneys, there shall be no more than two Committee staff attorneys permitted to question a witness per round. One of the Committee staff attorneys shall be designated by the chairman and the other by the ranking minority member. Other Committee staff members designated by the chairman or ranking minority member may attend, but may not pose questions to the witness. Questions in the deposition shall be propounded in rounds, alternating between the majority and minority. A single round shall not exceed 60 minutes per side, unless the members or staff attorneys conducting the deposition agree to a different length of questioning. In each round, a member or Committee staff attorney designated by the chairman shall ask questions first, and the member or Committee staff attorney designated by the ranking minority member shall ask questions second. The chairman may rule on any objections raised during a deposition. If a member of the Committee appeals in writing the ruling of the chairman, the appeal shall be preserved for Committee consideration. A witness that refuses to answer a question after being directed to answer by the chairman may be subject to sanction, except that no sanctions may be imposed if the ruling of the chairman is reversed on appeal. Committee staff shall ensure that the testimony is either transcribed or electronically recorded or both. If a witness's testimony is transcribed, the witness or the witness's counsel shall be afforded an opportunity to review a copy. No later than five days thereafter, the witness may submit suggested changes to the chairman. Committee staff may make any typographical and technical changes requested by the witness. Substantive changes, modifications, clarifications, or amendments to the deposition transcript submitted by the witness must be accompanied by a letter signed by the witness requesting the changes and a statement of the witness's reasons for each proposed change. Any substantive changes, modifications, clarifications, or amendments shall be included as an appendix to the transcript conditioned upon the witness signing the transcript. The individual administering the oath, if other than a member, shall certify on the transcript that the witness was duly sworn. The transcriber shall certify that the transcript is a true record of the testimony, and the transcript shall be filed, together with any electronic recording, with the clerk of the Committee in Washington, DC. Depositions shall be considered to have been taken in Washington, DC, as well as the location actually taken once filed there with the clerk of the Committee for the Committee's use. The chairman and the ranking minority member shall be provided with a copy of the transcripts of the deposition at the same time. The chairman and ranking minority member shall consult regarding the release of depositions. If either objects in writing to a proposed release of a deposition or a portion thereof, the matter shall be promptly referred to the Committee for resolution. A witness shall not be required to testify unless the witness has been provided with a copy of the Committee's rules.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise to acknowledge and thank retiring United States Coast Guard Reserve Public Affairs Specialist First Class Spring de Haviland for her exemplary service to our Nation. Specialist First Class de Haviland retired from the United States Coast Guard Reserves on January 11, 2007 after 30 years of service that began on January 26, 1977. She served at a number of duty stations, including San Pedro, California, Valdez, Alaska, Grand Haven, Michigan, Kodiak Island, Alaska, Washington, D.C. United States Coast Guard Headquarters, and Washington Island, Wisconsin. During her distinctive career, Ms. de Haviland earned 6 Good Conduct Medals, 6 Meritorious Service Medals, a Unit Commendation Medal, and a Special Operations Medal. She received 4 awards for exemplary service from the U.S. Department of Defense Information School for her work as a public affairs, media relations, community relations and cultural affairs relations instructor. Among her many projects, she created, produced and distributed worldwide to the military Persian Excursion, a humorous video featuring Bob Hope, and directed the Two Hundred Year USCG Anniversary celebration in Grand Haven, Michigan. Ms. de Haviland was also recognized as Outstanding Enlistee of the Year by her USCGR group. I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Specialist First Class de Haviland for her 30 years of dedicated service. Our Nation owes her a debt of gratitude for her commitment and record of accomplishments.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate the American Cancer Fund for Children and Kids Cancer Connection, located in the 30th Congressional District, which I represent. Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa proclaimed the week of December 11, 2006, as ``Childhood Cancer Awareness Week'' in the city of Los Angeles. I am pleased to join Mayor Villaraigosa in thanking Steven Firestein, the founder of American Cancer Fund for Children and its sister organization, Kids Cancer Connection, for his wonderful work in assisting children with cancer. More than 12 years ago, Steven began the American Cancer Fund for Children to provide vital patient psychosocial services to children undergoing cancer treatment at the Skull Base Institute at the Cedars-Sinai Medical Office Towers in Los Angeles, Mattel Children's Hospital at UCLA Medical Center in Los Angeles, and participating hospitals throughout the country. One of the wonderful services provided through American Cancer Fund for Children is the Magical Caps for Kids program. Hand-made caps and decorated baseball caps are given to children who want to protect their heads following the trauma of chemotherapy, surgery, and radiation. The American Cancer Fund for Children also sponsors Courageous Kid award ceremonies and hospital celebrations in recognition of children's bravery and determination in their struggle against cancer. As we know, cancer is the leading cause of death by disease among children in the United States. This tragic disease is detected in nearly 11,000 of our Nation's children each year. Steven Firestein and the American Cancer Fund for Children and Kids Cancer Connection are providing critical services and comfort to young patients and their families. I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Steven Firestein for his tremendous efforts.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, my friend and colleague, Representative Dan Burton, who just spoke, I think captured the essence of this issue. The question is whether the U.S. Government can get a better price negotiating with the drug companies using the millions of seniors as leverage or whether individuals can get a better price if they could negotiate on their own or whether drug plans can get a better price if they can negotiate on their own. Medicare and government overall negotiates, and when the Medicare negotiates for physician fees, they negotiate what the fee will be and then they say this is the fee we will pay. That should be the same for the Medicare drug benefit. We can save billions of dollars. Now, I know that we hear about the drug companies saying this won't work and, in fact, the market is working. Well, the market is not working. There is no market there. But it is not working. People can go to Canada right now and get a lower price for their drugs than they can in the Medicare drug plan as it exists today. People can go to Costco and get a better price. They can search around and get a better price. But when government negotiates, we get the best price. And we have seen it when the government negotiates the prices for the veterans, and we saw it when the government negotiated the prices for the Medicaid population. They used that buying clout and got deep discounts. The drug companies raise all sorts of scare tactics. They say if we have the government negotiating prices, people will be denied drugs because there will be a formulary. And then the bill prohibits that from happening. Then they turn around and say, well, to confuse the issue, if there isn't a formulary, there won't be savings. Most of the opposition to this is coming from the drug companies, and whose interests are they looking after? Not the seniors and not the taxpayers. I urge support for the legislation.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3 Since President Bush announced his stem cell funding restrictions, we've learned a number of things that, in my opinion, make the policy even less ethical than it was in 2001. We learned that the President was wrong about how many stem cell lines would be available to researchers under his ban. The President said there were more than 60 available lines, and soon after it was claimed that there were 78. We learned later that year that only 24 or 25 of those lines were ready for research. In 2003, the administration was conceded that only 11 lines were available to researchers. Today only about 20 lines are available, and all of them were grown on substances that might make them unfit for future use in therapies. We've also learned that since the President's announcement, the proportion of stem cell research conducted in the United States has shrunk. There's a recent analysis that looked at all scientific papers on human embryonic stem cell research published over the last several years. The White House has cited this study to point out that almost half of the labs producing papers on the topic from 1998 through 2004 were in the U.S. But in pulling out this overall statistic, the White House seems to have ignored the study's title: ``An international gap in human embryonic stem cell research.'' The authors found that after the restrictions, the U.S. contribution to embryonic stem cell research dropped. In 2001, about one-third of all stem cell research papers were produced here. But by 2004--just three years later--that proportion had dropped to about one-quarter. The study's authors wrote that the U.S. is ``falling behind'' in embryonic stem cell research. They wrote that this growing gap could put U.S. patients at a disadvantage if therapies are discovered. In fact, they concluded that ``U.S. congressional delays and the Bush administration's resistance to an expansion of Federal funding suggest a real danger for U.S. biomedicine.'' Scientists are saying that the administration's ban stymies their research. Many U.S. scientists are getting offers to work overseas because funding is available there and policies are clear. The most discouraging news is that young scientists are reportedly hesitating to even enter this field because it's not being funded in proportion to its potential. The White House is pushing other distorted interpretations of the issue. In a report released yesterday, the White House pointed out that there are many clinical trials related to adult stem cells, but none related to embryonic stem cells. This is truly an Alice-in-Wonderland style argument. The administration sharply restricts researchers' ability to work with embryonic stem cells and pushes researchers to work with adult stem cells. Then, it turns around several years later and notes, to no one's surprise, that most of the clinical trials are being done with adult stem cells. One can only wonder where we'd be if America's top researchers were free to work with the most powerful tools. Some of you may have noticed last week's news reports on amniotic stem cells. These cells appear to hold some potential for research because they can develop into multiple cell types. We all want to understand what this research means for this debate. And I think we can probably agree that the lead researcher, Dr. Anthony Atala, is a good interpreter. What he has said, consistently, is that amniotic stem cells do not substitute for embryonic stem cells. He has said that the cells have different qualities, may have different potentials for growing into different cell types, and may have different applications down the road. I think we should listen to the scientist behind this study, and not those who want to distort this promising news to suppress other potentially life-saving research. Dr. Atala's explanation makes one thing very clear. The most important reason amniotic stem cells can't replace embryonic stem cells is that we do not know enough about either type. A growing body of research has made clear that stem cells of all kinds have much to teach us about the human body and disease. Hopefully this knowledge will lead to treatments and cures. But if we're going to get there, we need a serious Federal commitment to funding all promising and ethical stem cell research. That is what this bill will do. I respect the beliefs of those who are concerned about protecting human life. But it is my opinion--widely shared by most Americans--that the use of cells from embryos that will otherwise be discarded is well within ethical boundaries. Like many of my colleagues here, what I consider unethical is telling people suffering from diseases like Parkinson's and Alzheimer's that their suffering doesn't justify the strongest possible federal commitment to finding a cure. What I consider unethical is turning to the generations following us and telling them that we didn't make as much progress, and we won't be passing on as much scientific understanding, as we could have. We have already squandered valuable time, but it is not too late. It's time to recover lost ground--and reclaim the leadership role our country has earned in biomedical science--by supporting this ethical and important research.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Dr. David E. Janssen and to thank him for his 40-year career as a public servant in the State of California. Our Nation owes him a debt of gratitude for his decades of dedicated public service. In August 1996, Dr. Janssen became the ninth Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) of Los Angeles County, a position that was created in 1938. He has been a superb leader and an inspiring example of personal integrity and dedication. He brought a wealth of fiduciary and operational knowledge gained through years of experience to his post that has resulted in prudent recommendations and sound oversight of the County's $20 billion budget. As CAO, Dr. Janssen has been responsible for a wide range of duties, including making financial recommendations to the County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors to bring more cost-efficient programs to better serve the public. He has worked closely with the 38 County Departments to make certain that Board policies and priorities have been implemented. He has monitored Countywide spending and recommended departmental budgets to the Board and ensured that Board-approved allocations are not exceeded. Dr. Janssen has made sure that the Board's legislative and intergovernmental policies and objectives have been coordinated with the Board Offices, the Legislative Strategist, and the offices in Sacramento and Washington, DC. Dr. Janssen has coordinated capital projects/debt management, asset management, leasing and space management; administered insurance management programs; coordinated emergency preparedness and cost recovery efforts following major disasters; addressed unincorporated area issues; handled centralized security management for employees and facilities; advised Board offices and departments on international protocol issues; managed the County's employee relations program and compensation systems; coordinated centralized marketing programs; performed demographic and geographic research; coordinated centralized workplace programs, such as ride sharing, saving bonds, charity and volunteers; initiated and promoted activities which provide information about the County to the public; and provided centralized photographic and graphic art services. Under Dr. Janssen's leadership, the CAO's office initiated an annual Vision Statement for the County that defined ``core values'' for providing public services, including integrity, commitment, accountability, professionalism, compassion, respect for diversity, and responsiveness. Dr. Janssen was instrumental in implementing a Strategic Plan in conjunction with the Vision Statement, which now includes six goals: Service Excellence; Workforce Excellence; Organizational Effectiveness; Fiscal Responsibility; Children and Families Well-Being; and Community Services. Dr. Janssen has held memberships in several civic and professional organizations, including the United Way, on which he continues to serve as a member of the Board of Directors, and the Rotary. He also serves on the University of Southern California School of Policy, Planning and Development Board of Councilors. In addition, he is a member of the American Society of Public Administration and the National Academy of Public Administration, which honored him with the 2003 National Public Service Award given for exemplary public service. Dr. Janssen has served our Nation, our State, and our County with honor and distinction. He is to be commended for his philosophy of open and honest government that provides easy access to information for employees and the public so they can meaningfully participate in the governmental process. I ask my colleagues to join me and Dr. Janssen's many co-workers, family, friends, and associates in congratulating him on his retirement and wishing him health, happiness, and good fortune in his future endeavors.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, this bill represents the triumph of ideology and politics over science. The Congress of the United States is going to tell doctors to give a brochure with information that scientists do not believe is accurate. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists opposes this bill, and this is the professional society of physicians who know the most about the care of pregnant women, and they have stated they know of no legitimate scientific information that supports the statement that a fetus experiences pain. Well, let me repeat that. This organization says they know of no legitimate scientific information that supports the statement that a fetus experiences pain. So the Congress in this bill would tell doctors that they have to inform a woman of something that most of these doctors do not believe to be scientifically accurate. It is bad enough to interfere with the doctor-patient relationship, but to tell doctors that they have to give their patients inaccurate medical information would not just be meddlesome. It is completely out of line. It would be a dangerous precedent where we ask doctors to tell patients something that is scientifically not valid in the most personal of decisions of people's lives. If we really care about women's informed consent, we should not force doctors to misinform them. I urge opposition to this bill. I regret that we have a scientific matter just as we did in other cases like the right to life case in Florida where the Congress wants to tell people what to do, not just the women but their doctors, and this is an example of ideology and politics, not good science informing our decisions. I urge strong opposition to the bill.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to welcome the 2006 United Jewish Communities General Assembly to Los Angeles. It is an honor to host this national gathering and showcase our very own LA Jewish Federation, which has deep roots and a long and accomplished history of community service. The UJC's tireless advocacy on behalf of seniors, children, and countless others in need is critically important and deeply valued. The reach of their care and concern extends across the United States, Israel and to Jewish communities around the world. I am particularly proud of the UJC's efforts to expand the Naturally Occurring Retirement Communities (NORC) program, which brings dignity and much-needed help to the elderly. I would also like to commend their immediate mobilization to rebuild neighborhoods and kibbutzim in Northern Israel recovering from Hezbollah rocket attacks. Collectively, UJC shines as a beacon of the Jewish value of tzedakah. Individually, each one of the dedicated UJC staff, volunteers and contributors deserves recognition for making a real difference in people's lives, one person at a time. I look forward to working with UJC in the future to achieve the goals we share.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very reluctant opposition to this Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Modernization Act of 2006. I was the original sponsor of the legislation, and I have been a long-time supporter of it, but I think we find ourselves in a tragic situation today because the basis of the problem is that the population of those needing services has grown, but the funds for the Ryan White program have not grown with it. This program is chronically underfunded. Well, that means if we want to give to some people who are very deserving, we are going to have to take it from others who are very deserving. This should not be the choice of the body in Congress today. I recognize that a failure to pass the legislation could put many States, like my own, that have been collecting HIV data by code, at a severe risk of a loss of funding. Obviously, this is a situation in which we wish we would not find ourselves in, but if we adopt this bill we are agreeing to a long-term system that does not treat fairly States which must now begin to implement a whole new system for finding and reporting persons with HIV. The bill favors States and cities that collected HIV data by name over those that collected it by code; and, as a result, many areas of the country will see drastic losses of funding. This is unfair. Large and diverse code-based States, like California, would have to start from scratch, converting their approximately 40,000 code-based cases of HIV to names, and under California law, these cases cannot simply be retallied under a new names-based system. The State would have to contact 40,000 individuals. I do not think California will be able to get all of those individuals entered into the names-based system in 3 years. So I cannot support legislation that would take critical dollars away from California simply because its data system is incomplete. We will have the same number of persons with HIV needing services. They should not lose needed services because of an unrealistic data requirement. I wish I could support this bill. I would support it if this problem could be addressed, and I am hopeful that when this bill gets to the Senate and there are further deliberations we can get a better bill. I do not want to see no bill pass, particularly with the threat that we are hearing from the administration that they are going to penalize the code-based States, but I do not want to vote for a bill that I do not think is a good enough bill. The Ryan White program has had a long history of broad bipartisan support. It did not pit interests of one area of the country against another. It did not ask cities and States to give up critical funds to treat people in their areas. Ultimately, we must find the will to direct the necessary dollars to this problem. The people who continue to suffer from this epidemic deserve no less. Mr. Speaker, I have to be reluctant and vote ``no'' and hope that we can get a better bill when this legislation passes the House and there are further deliberations with the Senate.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, the NIH Reform Act of 2006 reauthorizes the authority for one of the preeminent health agencies of the Federal government, recognized for its fine work here and around the world. This is not an agency that is broken or in need of fundamental reform. The single most important thing we could do to improve its function is to provide it with sufficient appropriations to expand its research activities and fund more grants. Instead, over the recent years of this Congress, we have consistently provided appropriations which are not sufficient to cover inflationary increases in research costs, let alone continue expansion of the work of this agency. In 2006, in fact, the budget was cut in actual dollar terms--the first time this has occurred in 36 years. While I recognize Chairman Barton is signaling with this legislation his belief that the growth in appropriations needs to be higher, it is clear that what most needs to be done is to change the fiscal policies of this Administration and Congress, and the budgets they establish, so that indeed more funds can be directed to this valuable institution. Voting for higher authorizations, if in fact votes for higher appropriations do not follow, means little. This bill establishes a ceiling in the authorization, and provides that half of all increased appropriations would go into a Common Fund in the Office of the Director. If we followed this combination, it would mean 3 more years where appropriations for the institutes won't cover inflation. I regret that our dismal record of recent years of failing to provide sufficient appropriations for the NIH has made the authorization levels in this bill seem generous. They are not. Certainly, there are proposals in this legislation that are worthy of support, and I will support this bill moving forward. Mr. Barton has worked hard to moderate his original proposal, and he has secured support from the community as a result of his efforts. I do urge the Senate, however, as they consider this bill, to pay particular attention to provisions which allow the Administration to abolish institutes and offices established by law without the consent of the Congress. The bill also establishes a Scientific Management Review Board, with similar powers to change the organization of the NIH with no Congressional involvement. Although I recognize that the Secretary has authority to make these kinds of changes under current law, no Secretary has ever used it. So these provisions breathe life into an authority that has long lain dormant. In my view, it is not a wise move for the Congress to affirm and expand the authority of the Administration to undo the actions of the Congress. We should not put the Office of Women's Health, or the Office of AIDS Research, or the Office of Rare Diseases, at risk. These were established by the Congress because the Executive Branch did not recognize their need. I will support the bill moving forward. And I look forward to its continued improvement.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, border security is an issue of great concern to all Americans. It deserves serious deliberation and congressional consideration. Unfortunately, the bill before us now, H.R. 6160, the More Border Patrol Agents Now Act, was introduced yesterday and is being considered on the floor today without benefit of committee action by either the Homeland Security or Government Reform Committee. H.R. 6160 would grant the Department of Homeland Security the ability to award Border Patrol agents lump-sum recruitment and retention bonuses of up to 25 percent of annual pay. It would also allow the Department to rehire retirees. The Department can already do this under current Governmentwide authorities as long as it works with the Office of Personnel Management, OPM, the agency which best understands hiring needs. Giving the Department this direct authority to circumvent OPM may or may not be a good idea. Appropriate action by the committees of jurisdiction would have allowed us to determine whether or not this independent authority is needed. In short, we should not view this bill as a magic bullet to cure the ills of the Border Patrol. The Director of the OPM already has the authority to authorize the head of an agency to pay these bonuses. So the only real effect of this measure will be to cut the Federal agency with the most expertise in Federal personnel issues out of the decisionmaking process with regard to the Border Patrol.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us would create a new agency within the Department of Health and Human Services, the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, or BARDA. I support creating this new agency. However, some provisions in the bill raise concerns because they waive a number of existing Federal statutes enacted to ensure proper government oversight. I want to express my reservations over these provisions, and urge that they be addressed in conference. This bill contains exemptions from important federal open government laws designed to ensure accountability and transparency, like the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and federal procurement law. These open government laws are within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Government Reform, on which I am the ranking member, but unfortunately, the Government Reform Committee did not have an opportunity to consider the bill. FOIA is the central law that guarantees public access to government information. It establishes the presumption that people should be able to access information held by the government. FOIA contains exemptions that prevent the disclosure of information in the case where harm could result from disclosure--including exemptions for classified information, trade secrets, information compiled for law enforcement purposes, and internal agency documents that would be exempt from discovery in litigation. H.R. 5533 establishes a new FOIA exemption, requiring the Secretary to withhold from public disclosure ``specific technical data of scientific information that is created or obtained during countermeasure research and product advanced development funded by the Secretary that reveal vulnerabilities of existing medical or public health defenses against biological, chemical, nuclear, or radiological threats.'' While this exemption appears narrow in scope, the Administration has a long record of interpreting narrow language broadly to withhold public information. Unless there is a compelling reason why the existing FOIA exemptions are inadequate--which there does not appear to be in this case--it is unwise to add new exemptions to FOIA. Moreover, the language of the new exemption is not clear. The language applies to any ``advanced research and development that is funded by the Secretary,'' which may inappropriately extend the exemption far beyond BARDA to other research funded by the Department of Health and Human Services. Another issue is so-called ``other transaction authority.'' This authority is essentially a waiver from most federal procurement law-- everything from competition requirements, to auditing and pricing safeguards, to the Buy America and Drug-free workplace laws. The authority was originally developed to help DOD in attracting smaller contractors to federal research and development contracts, though in practice it has not often been used to accomplish that objective. While I am not necessarily opposed to granting BARDA other transaction authority, I have yet to hear a convincing rationale for its necessity. If such a rationale exists, we should explore ways to limit its application at BARDA to those instances where it is truly needed, as opposed to the blanket grant of authority currently in H.R. 5533. Finally, H.R. 5533 exempts all advisory committees established under the bill from section 14 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Section 14 was added to the FACA law because Congress decided that there was a proliferation of advisory committees and that it is important to ensure that they should continuously be reviewed to ensure their ongoing necessity. Again, there is no clear explanation for why this waiver of current law is necessary, or what interests would be protected by exempting the committees from renewal requirements. All of these issues are within the jurisdiction of the Government Reform Committee, and I hope they can be addressed as this bill moves forward in the legislative process.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I support the goal of H.R. 5835 to strengthen security of personal data held by the Government, but believe that more should be done. For the Department of Veterans Affairs, this bill provides more training for employees on privacy issues, independent risk analysis of data breaches, credit freezes for persons whose data has been compromised, and more. This is an important step in light of recent data losses at the VA. But the detailed requirements in this bill only apply to the Department of Veterans Affairs. For the rest of the Government, none of this is required, even though our committee's inquiries have uncovered serious breaches in other Federal agencies. For example, the Department of Commerce recently reported the loss of more than 1,000 laptop computers, some containing census information. To protect the privacy of personal information, we should require increased training, accountability, and reporting in all Federal agencies, not just the VA. I am also concerned about the procedures under which this bill has come to the floor. Although primarily a VA bill, this bill also includes amendments to the Federal Information Security Management Act, FISMA, a government-wide law, in the jurisdiction of the Committee on Government Reform. Some of these provisions were in the reported version of this bill, and some were just added by amendment today from a bill introduced yesterday. None of these government-wide provisions were considered in the Committee of Government Reform. H.R. 5835 now includes 2 different definitions of ``sensitive personal information''--one applying to the entire government under FISMA, and another applying to the Department of Veterans Affairs. Had this bill proceeded through the regular committee process, inconsistencies like this could have been resolved and a clearer, more comprehensive bill reported to the floor. I hope that Congress will consider additional legislation to clarify the patchwork of laws and regulations currently in place and extend stronger data security requirements to the entire Federal Government.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank everyone who assisted in bringing this bill to the floor today, Chairman Don Young, Ranking Member Oberstar, Representatives Jerry Lewis and David Dreier. H.R. 4653 is noncontroversial legislation. It repeals a law enacted in 1985 that prohibits subway tunneling in an area of Los Angeles that I represent. I authored the 1985 measure after a methane gas explosion demolished a Ross Dress for Less store in the Third and Fairfax area of Los Angeles. At the time, serious safety concerns were raised about the city's plans to extend the subway through 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 this 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. 4653 simply lifts the Federal tunneling prohibition that has been in place since 1985. The Transportation Infrastructure Committee reported this bill unanimously on July 19, and I urge my colleagues to support it as well.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, the bill we are considering today, S. 2950, requires the Office of Management and Budget to create a searchable database of federal grants and contracts accessible to the public on the Internet. I am pleased to support this bill. In June, the House considered a watered down version of this bill, H.R. 5060. The House bill included only grants, leaving out hundreds of billions of dollars in annual spending on federal contracts. At the time, I urged Chairman Davis to work with me to include contract disclosure in the legislation. The bill before us today is stronger and more comprehensive than the bill passed by the House in June. While the House bill covered only grants, the database created under this legislation will include all federal grants and contracts. If this bill is implemented properly, any citizen with Internet access will be able to examine a comprehensive set of records for information about federal spending. For each grant or contract awarded, the database will include details about the recipient of the award, as well as the amount of the award, the purpose of the funding action, and other relevant information. There has been considerable confusion about what this bill does and does not do. The information that this bill requires to be posted on the Internet is not secret. In fact, there are existing databases that are accessible to Congress and the public that are already required to include the information covered in this bill. Under current law, for example, there is a federal procurement database maintained by the General Services Administration. This database, called the Federal Procurement Data System, is required to contain significant amount of information about each federal contract. Similarly, there is a grants database maintained by the Census Bureau, the Federal Assistance Data System, which collects information about domestic financial assistance awards. In addition, grants.gov and various databases maintained by individual agencies, contain some of this information. But these databases don't always contain the information that they are supposed to contain. They aren't always kept up to date. And they can be difficult to use. In essence, what this bill does is require that these existing databases be compiled into a new database that is more organized and more accessible. Ordinarily, I would not be in favor of legislation that requires the government to spend money repackaging data that is already in existence. But this bill is an exception. The current state of the existing databases is so poor that Congress is justified in passing new legislation. Ultimately, implementation will be key to the success of this bill. If the administration is not committed to making the legislation work, all we will get is another incomplete and hard-to-use database. My hope is that by passing this bill with broad, bipartisan support, we are sending a signal to the administration that it needs to do a better job. Members of Congress from both parties and both the House and Senate have worked hard to make this bill a reality. I want to compliment Senator Obama and Senator Coburn, in particular, for their leadership. They put aside partisanship to forge the bill we are considering today. I also want to thank Chairman Davis for agreeing to expand the scope of this bill to cover contracts. The legislation we are passing today is not comprehensive reform; it will not restore honesty and accountability in government. It's a modest, bipartisan step in the direction of open government. But in the climate we're currently in, even a small step forward is worth supporting and celebrating. I urge support of this legislation.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, we should not pass H.R. 4157 without including essential privacy protections for the health information of American consumers. Privacy protection should go hand-in-hand with efforts to promote health information technology, yet the Republican leadership refused to include appropriate privacy protections or allow consideration of privacy amendments. Our health care system will not be effective if privacy fears deter Americans from seeking appropriate treatment. Unfortunately, survey after survey demonstrates that American consumers lack confidence that the privacy of their personal health information will be protected. Just last year, the California Health Care Foundation found that nearly two-thirds of Americans polled were concerned about the privacy of their health information, and one out of eight had taken steps that could have put their health at risk simply because of privacy concerns. Moving health records into electronic form is only likely to increase their fears unless we act to ensure appropriate privacy protections are in place. Recent incidents involving security threats to medical information have underscored the vulnerability of electronically maintained data. In June, we learned that Medicare data on 17,000 beneficiaries enrolled in a Medicare prescription drug plan had been put at risk due to inappropriate security protections on a computer file. And then the Department of Veterans Affairs' computer that was stolen several months ago contained sensitive information that included disability ratings for some veterans and notes about some veterans' health conditions. In fact, according to the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, nearly 90 million electronic data records of U.S. residents have been compromised because of security breaches in just the past year and a half. This administration's lax approach to enforcing existing medical privacy requirements has raised additional concerns. A recent Washington Post article reported that the administration has not imposed a single civil fine under the Federal medical privacy rule despite nearly 20,000 complaints of violations over the 3 years the rule has been in effect. It is irresponsible for Congress to promote the development and use of health information technology without ensuring that necessary privacy and security for health information are in place. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding to me so I could point out these specific concerns that I have with this legislation, and I wish we could address them.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in congratulating Magen David Adom, Israel's national emergency medical service, as a fully admitted and recognized member of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. This 60-year effort to win membership for Israel's humanitarian society solely on the basis the MDA uses the Star of David as its symbol. Since its founding in 1930, MDA has been a leading participant in international humanitarian relief efforts and in training and instruction in emergency services techniques. Regrettably, the organization has been denied full membership in the International Committee for the Red Cross, ICRC, because of anti-Israel bias among countries that refuse to recognize the State of Israel or the symbol of the Star of David. This political discrimination is in direct violation of the ICRC principle of maintaining neutrality and impartiality in conflicts. MDA has been a committed humanitarian society embodying all the goals and ideals of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. MDA has been an impartial force in the international community helping victims all over the world after the Southeast Asian tsunami, Hurricane Katrina, disastrous flooding of the River Danube in Romania, even helping those considered enemies of Israel. But for 60 years, Israel was denied membership. There was no good reason for MDA to be forced to wait this long to be a member of ICRC when their efforts are solely humanitarian and separate from the decades-old political conflict existing in the Middle East. The process of International recognition has been a long and arduous process tainted by discrimination allowing politics to outweigh the humanitarian objectives of the MDA. A diplomatic conference in Geneva in December 2005 was a significant step in the process of enabling MDA to finally become a full member in the International Committee of the Red Cross. On December 8, 2005 the signatory countries to the Geneva Conventions approved a Third Additional Protocol establishing a new neutral Red Crystal emblem by a vote of 98 in favor, 27 against, with 10 abstentions. After all these years, the Syrian delegation still tried to stall the vote, but in the end was unable to prevent the adoption of the Third Protocol. I am pleased that this longstanding injustice has been rectified and MDA is permitted to conduct international humanitarian operations under a third neutral symbol. We should not allow decades old disputes and larger, unrelated political problems in the Middle East to impede the work of Israel's humanitarian aid society. I also take this time to applaud the efforts of U.S. diplomats and American organizations for bringing the issue of MDA's exclusion from the ICRC to the focus of the international community. Without U.S. leadership on this important issue and the pressure that both our leaders and the American Red Cross put on the ICRC, this wrong that has existed since Israel's founding would not have been redressed. Our country understood that we should not allow politics to prevail over humanitarian efforts in any country no matter what the political climate or religious beliefs are. I also thank the American Red Cross for its continued support to help open the channels for MDA's acceptance in the ICRC. I fully support the decision of the American Red Cross, since 2000, to protest the exclusion of MDA by withholding $42 million in annual dues from ICRC. Finally, I would like to thank Hadassah, the Women's Zionist Organization of America, for its efforts lobbying Congress and working with the U.N. and the American Red Cross in support of MDA. MDA should never have been linked to the fate of the Israeli- Palestinian conflict and with the adoption of a third neutral symbol will be able to fulfill its humanitarian mission. The adoption of a neutral symbol is a celebration that humanitarian principles have triumphed above politics and bigotry.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, we don't recognize often enough the talented and dedicated individuals who are critical to the operations of the House of Representatives. They safeguard our traditions and keep our great institution functioning. Tim Friedman is one of these essential individuals. I can't remember the House of Representatives without him and will miss him when he retires. Tim arrived in 1976 during my first term in Congress. He has been an invaluable part of the House during his exceptional service. Tim started in the Doorkeeper's Office and then worked as an Assistant to the Sergeant of Arms. But I'm sure most of my colleagues, like me, remember his work in the Democratic Cloakroom best. Tim has put the institution of the House first and has done all he can to help Members and staff do their jobs the best way possible. Now it's time for him and his wife Colleen to take a well-deserved break and play golf the best way possible. And, although their new home will be North Carolina, they'll keep an eye to the north and spend a good amount of their time off the links cheering the New York Yankees and Buffalo Bills on to greatness. We will miss Tim greatly and will remain indebted to him for making the House of Representatives a better institution.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong opposition to House Joint Resolution 88, which would amend our Constitution to deny basic rights to gays and lesbians. I would like to express my disappointment in the Republican leadership for once again bringing this divisive and discriminatory amendment before Congress. Our Constitution has guided our Nation for over 200 years. During that time, it has been amended to guarantee religious liberty, equal protection, and the right to vote. Not once has it been amended to take away rights from a specific group of people. Yet that is what this legislation would do. Of course, this constitutional amendment will not be adopted; it failed to garner even a simple majority only weeks ago in the Senate. We are wasting our time on this because Republican pollsters have concluded that targeting gays and lesbians is a winning election strategy. Mr. Speaker, our fellow citizens deserve better. Same-sex couples are trying to raise families, pay the bills, get health care for their partners, and put their kids through college. Instead of working to help them, we are debating whether to permanently deny them over 1,000 rights and benefits given to married heterosexual couples. We should be striving for fairness and equality, not singling them out for discrimination. Americans are sick and tired of political gamesmanship. They want a Congress that will address the real challenges our Nation faces: health care, energy security, education, economic opportunity. The Republican leadership has once again let down the American people, and I urge my colleagues to reject this effort to distract and divide.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, it is a tragedy that we have come to this point today, watching the spiral of hostilities between Israel and its neighbors. Although Israel withdrew completely from Lebanon in 2000, and the U.N. Security Council certified the withdrawal to internationally recognized borders, Hezbollah still refuses to accept peace. Although Israel has removed all its settlers from Gaza and has been working with President Abbas to negotiate additional concessions, Hamas is still unwilling to lay down its weapons, accept Israel's legitimate existence, and come to the table to negotiate the creation of a peaceful Palestinian state. When Hamas and Hezbollah leaders were elected to be part of the emerging democratic governments, some hoped they would focus on leading the Palestinian and Lebanese people to fulfill their aspirations of a stable and prosperous future. Instead, the terrorists have pursued only their own aspirations of regional instability and the destruction of Israel. Kidnapping soldiers does nothing to promote the welfare of the Lebanese and Palestinian people. Missile attacks don't develop the economy or expand freedom of movement or provide access to health care and education. Terrorism has only brought suffering to the people of Gaza and Lebanon, and these attacks serve no one but the terrorists and their state sponsors. We must recognize the role of Syria and Iran in this conflict, and the threat they pose to Israel, the United States, and the entire Middle East. Though it has been unwilling or unable to do so, the world must insist that the Lebanese government take control of its borders and disarm the terrorists within them as required by the Road Map and the U.N. Security Council. Israel has made every effort to avoid civilian casualties, and those that have occurred are tragic. But Israel's best efforts to spare civilians stand in sharp contrast to the terrorists' deliberate efforts to target Israeli civilians as they drink their morning coffee or head off to school and work. Acts like these leave Israel no choice but to break down the terrorists' capacity to carry them out. Israel has targeted stockpiles of missiles procured from Syria and Iran and blocked the routes through which the terrorists would rearm. It is ramas and Hezbollah who have cruelly decided to place these stockpiles among civilians, again putting the political and strategic needs of terror above those of the people they claim to represent. Israel is not the source of instability and danger. Israel withdrew from Lebanon and Gaza in pursuit of peace. The terrorist regimes in the region have pursued other ends. Israel has every right as a sovereign nation to defend its cities from unprovoked cross-border attacks and to seek the safe, swift, and unconditional return of its soldiers.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am here on the floor to present a different amendment. But I listened to the debate on this, and I am really amazed. This House voted overwhelming to require v-chips on television sets so parents can protect their children from improper programming. But it would be absurd to do that and then say we are not going to at least have a gun lock to protect children who may pick up a gun and use it inappropriately, use it out of ignorance. So I want to join you in opposing this amendment. I see nothing wrong with a gun lock. I do not think that means people want to take away the guns or anything else, just to make sure that it is locked so if it gets in the hands of a child, that the child will not use it, kill someone or do harm to other children and members of the family. We do have requirements of locks on all sorts of products in order to protect children. I think the rule that is in effect ought to be allowed to be continued without this amendment stopping it.

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

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, the law for advisory committees requires that it be fairly balanced in terms of points of view represented, pursuant to section 5(b)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee. Well, there are two trade advisory committees that influence a wide array of policy and negotiating decisions that impact access to medicine, both domestically and overseas. One is known as ITAC 3. It covers chemicals, pharmaceuticals, health products and services. The other, ITAC 15, advises the USTR on intellectual property rights. Pharmaceutical companies are represented already on these panels. But input from the public health community is nonexistent. To its credit, in December of 2005, the administration moved to rectify this imbalance by soliciting nominations for public health representatives to be added to the two committees. Yet more than 6 months later, despite numerous applications from the public health community and repeated inquires from Congress, no appointments have been made. The longer the USTR delays, the more we need to be concerned about biased advice that is resulting in controversial trade policies on drug pricing, drug competition and reimportation and other sensitive issues. For example, recent free trade agreements extend patent terms, delay generic competition and make it more difficult for governments to respond in the case of a public health crisis. The USTR's 2006 Special 301 Report on intellectual property violations threatens sanctions against our ally Israel because the Israeli government declined to adopt drug regulations that go beyond the requirements of the WTO and even U.S. law. Our FTA with Australia interferes with the pricing system they use to keep down drug prices. Well, the consequences of not getting a balanced input from these advisory committees could lead to serious problems for people in these developing countries because, unless they have access to generic drugs, their people will not be able to afford the drugs that could be as successful in dealing with HIV/AIDS treatment programs, and it could even have an impact on the price of drugs in the United States. The status quo is unacceptable. USTR ought to live up to its commitment to add public health representatives and meet its obligation under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and that is what the amendment seeks to do. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of Congressman Pallone's amendment to provide funding to the National Academy of Sciences to study the impacts of global warming on our coastal areas. Coastal communities are at serious risk from global warming. We must better understand the specific threats faced by each coastal community to give ourselves a chance to prepare. As the Earth warms, the sea level is rising. Scientists tell us that global warming likely caused 4 to 8 inches of sea level rise in the last century. Over the next 100 years, we may see up to 3 additional feet of sea level rise. Warmer water fuels more intense hurricanes and tropical storms. Coral reefs are being damaged by both warmer water and increased ocean acidity from carbon dioxide. Coastal communities need to know what they are up against. The effects of sea level rise include coastal erosion, land loss, disappearing beaches, saltwater intrusion into underground drinking water supplies, higher storm surges, damages to houses and roads, and harm to fisheries. And we have already seen the devastation that hurricanes and tropical storms could wreak on our coastal communities. Coastal communities, such as Los Angeles, will be affected by changes inland. One-third of our precious water supplies come from the Sierra snowpack. Of course, we must do much more than just try to adapt to massive temperature rises. The costs of that are far too high. We must dramatically cut our greenhouse gas emissions over the next few decades to avoid highly dangerous and irreversible warming. That is why last week, together with Congressman Pallone and other colleagues, I introduced the Safe Climate Act. The Safe Climate Act reflects what science says we need to do to protect our children and grandchildren from disastrous climate changes. While prompt action is necessary to avert the worst effects of climate change, this administration and the Congress are refusing to act. In the meantime, our coastal communities are at risk. The Pallone amendment is a simple, commonsense measure to assess some of these vulnerabilities. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.