Henry Waxman

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, our consideration today of the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act is long overdue, but it is more timely and urgent than ever. It has been nearly two years since this House recognized the atrocities in Darfur as genocide. In that time we have offered aid to refugees and support for peacekeeping activities. However, this is the first real legislative effort to enhance the U.S. response to this crisis. While I am pleased that we are acting, we should and could have done more sooner. H.R. 3127, authorizes tough sanctions against individuals responsible for the war crimes committed in Darfur. It imposes an embargo on Sudanese cargo ships and oil tankers, and strengthens the military arms embargo against the Sudanese government. The legislation will substantially improve our ability to provide protection for the more than 2 million vulnerable civilians displaced by the conflict. Specifically, it calls on NATO to expand and reinforce the African Union Mission in Sudan. It also advocates an initiative now underway at the Security Council to transition the African Union force into a UN sponsored peacekeeping operation. Sadly, as a recent Security Council assessment shows, the dire situation in Darfur is only deteriorating further. Relief organizations are being denied entry, supplies are being cut off and humanitarian missions are being attacked. Civilian populations and refugee camps remain unprotected and the murderous rampages of Jangaweed militias continue unchecked. There is little progress in peace negotiations. The transition to a UN led peacekeeping mission with greater resources and an expanded mandate is the only hope for improving the situation on the ground. Passage today of H.R. 3127 will add momentum to this effort. An end to the conflict in Darfur cannot be achieved without strong US leadership. We have a moral responsibility to intervene. I want to give credit to the activists across the country who have been the leading voices commanding our attention to this crisis. In classrooms, campuses, synagogues, churches, and communities across America there are so many who are deeply committed to making sure that those suffering in Darfur are not forgotten. At the end of the month, thousands will rally in Washington to call greater attention to the cause. I am especially proud that the University of California recently joined more than a dozen colleges around the country in divesting from companies that do business in Sudan. Similar efforts are being considered by a number of state legislatures and private pension plans. Congress and the Department of Treasury should lend their support to these efforts. Let us pledge that today is a new beginning in our fight for justice for the people of Darfur.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, today, I and a number of my colleagues are introducing legislation to investigate the White House's knowledge of the constitutional defects of S. 1932, the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, at the time the President signed the bill into law. On February 8, 2006, President Bush signed into law a version of S. 1932 that was different in substance from the version the U.S. House of Representatives passed on February 1, 2006. The House-passed version of the legislation required the Medicare program to lease ``durable medical equipment,'' such as wheelchairs, for seniors and other beneficiaries for up to 36 months, while the version of the legislation signed by the President limited the duration of these leases to just 13 months. As the Congressional Budget Office reported, this seemingly small change from 36 months to 13 months has a disproportionately large budgetary impact, cutting Medicare outlays by $2 billion over the next 5 years. Under the U.S. Constitution, a bill cannot become law unless the same version is passed by both Houses of Congress and signed by the President. It appears that the Republican congressional leadership knew that the process of enacting S. 1932 violated this principle. Now evidence is mounting that the President and his staff may have knowingly participated in this constitutionally infirm process. As I wrote to former White House chief of staff Andrew Card on March 15, I have learned that the Speaker of the House advised the White House of the differences between the House-passed bill and the bill presented to the President before the President signed the legislation. This account was confirmed in a March 22 Wall Street Journal article, which reported that the Speaker's chief of staff ``called a high ranking White House official'' and ``asked the Administration to delay proceedings until the problem could be addressed by the House and Senate.'' Nevertheless, the President signed S. 1932 into law without any action by the House and Senate to address the problem. This information has serious constitutional implications. When the President took the oath of office, he swore to ``preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.'' If the President signed S. 1932 knowing its constitutional infirmity, he would in effect be placing himself above the Constitution. The President's decision to authorize the National Security Agency to conduct warrantless wiretaps despite Federal laws forbidding the practice has raised questions in the minds of many Americans about whether he considers himself bound by the laws enacted by Congress. The mounting evidence that the President signed the Reconciliation Act into law knowing that it differed from the legislation passed by Congress now raises the issue whether he considers himself bound by the provisions of the Federal Constitution. Given the constitutional issues at stake, it is imperative that Congress exercise its oversight powers to examine what the President and his staff knew about the defects in S. 1932 and how they considered and acted on any such information. The resolution of inquiry I am introducing today would advance such a congressional inquiry by requesting that the White House provide Congress with all documents relating to information the White House received about the difference between the version of the bill the House passed on February 1 and the version the President signed on February 8. Background Last fall, the House and Senate passed different versions of the Deficit Reduction Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 2005. During the House- Senate conference committee on the bill, a significant last-minute issue arose in the conference involving how long Medicare should pay for durable medical equipment, DME. Existing Medicare law provided for payments for DME by Medicare under a fee schedule for an unlimited period of time. In an effort to reduce Medicare spending, the conferees tentatively agreed to reduce the duration of Medicare payment to just 13 months. This proposal, however, generated objections from a Senator and Representative from Ohio, where a major manufacturer of oxygen equipment is located. To accommodate their concerns, the conference report reduced the duration of Medicare payments for most DME to 13 months, but directed Medicare to continue to pay for oxygen equipment for 36 months. The final conference report was filed on December 19, 2005. The House passed the conference report on S. 1932 on December 19, 2005, by a vote of 212-206. The Senate considered the conference report on December 19, 20, and 21. During that consideration, several points of order were raised against the report and sustained as violating the congressional budget process. A motion was made to waive these points of order but that motion was defeated. The effect was to defeat the conference report in the Senate. On December 21, the Senate passed S. 1932 with an amendment that reflected the contents of the conference report, minus the items that generated the points of order. The vote in the Senate was a tie, and Vice President Cheney cast the deciding vote. This bill, as amended, was then sent back to the House for its concurrence. In the process of transmitting the bill, as amended, back to the House, the Senate clerk made a significant substantive change to the legislation. This change extended the duration of Medicare payments for all DME to 36 months, the same time period provided in the Senate amendment for oxygen equipment. The Senate clerk realized the mistake, and the Republican House leadership was informed of the error in January, several weeks before final House floor action was scheduled to occur. Such errors in formal messages between the houses are not unprecedented. They are recorded in the House precedents as having occurred as long ago as March 13, 1800, and as recently as July 12, 2005. They are typically handled by sending the legislation back to the Senate for the mistake to be corrected. The response by the Republican leadership to the error in S. 1932, however, was without precedent. It constitutes a violation of the House Rules and of the Constitution itself. Apparently concerned that any additional vote in the Senate could endanger passage of the legislation, the Republican leadership did not seek to correct the problem. Instead, the Republican leadership brought the legislation to the House floor on February 1 without revealing to the Democratic leadership or the body of the House that the 36-month period in the legislation before the House did not represent the legislation passed by the Senate. On February 1, the House voted on the version of the bill, as amended, that contained the DME mistake. The vote was extremely close, 216 to 214. As a result of this vote, the House and Senate had voted for different bills, the House having adopted a version that provided for 36 months for DME and the Senate having adopted a version that provided for 13 months. Because the budget legislation originated in the Senate, the official version was returned to the Senate before being transmitted to the President for his signature. At this point, a Senate clerk made a second substantive change in the legislation, revising the House-passed text to reflect the original Senate-passed amendment. This change restored the 13-month period for coverage of DME other than oxygen equipment. On February 7, the budget legislation was presented to the President. The documents transmitted to the President included an attestation by House Speaker Dennis Hastert and President pro tern of the Senate Ted Stevens that the legislation had been passed by both the Senate and the House. On the morning of February 8, the White House Office of Management and Budget notified Republican congressional staff that the version of the legislation presented to the President was not the same as the version of the legislation passed by the House. This information was conveyed to the office of House Speaker Hastert. The Speaker's chief of staff then called senior staff at the White House to advise the White House of this mistake and to request a delay in signing of the legislation. The Wall Street Journal recently published an account of the communications between the Speaker's chief of staff and the White House. According to the Wall Street Journal, the Speaker's office ``confirmed . . . that the Illinois Republican had asked the administration to delay proceedings until the problem could be addressed by the House and Senate.'' Indeed, the Wall Street Journal reported, ``When the Speaker and Senate Majority Leader . . . went to the White House for the Feb. 8 ceremony, they expected only a `mock ceremony'--not a real signing of the parchment that had been presented in error.'' On the afternoon of February 8, despite the communications from the House Speaker, the President signed the bill. The version the President signed is the version that reflected the Senate-passed amendment, not the House-passed text. The Need for the Resolution Over 100 years ago, the Supreme Court addressed whether a bill could become law if the version signed by the President differed from the version passed by the House and Senate. In the case of Field v. Clark, 143 US 649 (1892), the Court held that the President could rely on the attestation of the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate that the legislation before the President was the same as the legislation that passed the Congress. But the Court also recognized that the outcome would be different if there were a ``deliberate conspiracy'' to ignore the Constitution. As the Court wrote: It is said that . . . it becomes possible for the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate to impose upon the people as a law a bill that was never passed by Congress. But this possibility is too remote to be seriously considered in the present inquiry. It suggests a deliberate conspiracy to which the presiding officers, the committees on enrolled bills, and the clerks of the two houses must necessarily be parties, all acting with a common purpose to defeat an expression of the popular will in the mode prescribed by the constitution. It now appears that the possibility that a President would knowingly sign legislation that did not pass Congress is no longer ``too remote to be seriously considered.'' In fact, this is exactly what appears to have happened when President Bush signed the Reconciliation Act. To learn more about this matter, I wrote the President's chief of staff, Andrew Card, on March 15, seeking information on the President's knowledge of the bill's constitutional infirmity. When the Wall Street Journal reported on March 22 that Speaker Hastert's office had informed the White House of the problems with the legislation, I joined Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi in sending a second letter to the White House. Unfortunately, there has been no White House response. I therefore urge my colleagues to support the resolution of inquiry I am introducing today. The American public deserves a detailed explanation of what went wrong with the enactment of S. 1932--and assurance that government leaders will not ignore basic constitutional requirements regarding the legislative process.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to raise some serious concerns about H.R. 4882, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Visitor Center Deadline Enforcement Act. I think everyone in this body, myself included, believes strongly that the Vietnam Veterans Memorial should have a visitors center. That is why Congress passed H.R. 1442 2\1/2\ years ago with unanimous support. That bill authorized the visitors center to be constructed on Federal land in the District of Colombia. It also required that the design and construction of the center comply with existing Federal law governing the placement of memorials, museums, and other facilities on the Mall. As I am sure Members know, the construction of new facilities on the Mall is a difficult and often contentious issue where the competing interests of particular advocates sometimes conflict with the need to protect the sightlines and openness of the Mall itself. In order to deal with these issues fairly, ensure that all interested parties have a voice, and protect what is truly a national treasure, Congress has created the National Capitol Planning Commission, over which the Government Reform Committee has jurisdiction. It has also established in law a process for the consideration and approval of new facilities on the Mall in the Commemorative Works Act. The bill before us, H.R. 4882, short-circuits that process in two ways. First, it would create an arbitrary deadline for the visitors center's approval--30 days from the date of enactment. Second, the bill designates the sight on which the center will be built--a small triangle of land between the Vietnam Veterans and Lincoln Memorials. This seems like the kind of micro-management that could be avoided if the Commemorative Works Act process was followed. One of the requirements of current law is for an environmental assessment to be done on all new facilities on the Mall. It is my understanding that the lack of a completed environmental assessment for the Vietnam visitors center is what has held up the approval for the facility by the Nation Capitol Planning Commission. This assessment will provide critical information needed for final site approval, and it is my further understanding that this assessment is currently underway. I believe that this approval process should be allowed to reach its own conclusion, without mandated deadlines and site selection. The National Capitol Planning Commission is working in good faith with the National Park Service, the General Services Administration, the government of the District of Colombia, and Vietnam Veterans groups to reach a timely conclusion to this approval process. They should be allowed to do so.

Mr. WAXMAN

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

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, $40 for a case of soda, $100 for a bag of laundry, torching an $80,000 truck instead of replacing flat tires, charging 40 times more to transport fuel than reasonable, these are some of the things that Halliburton has been called to task for, not by Democrats, but by the auditors, the professional auditors at the Department of Defense; and they should have been penalized for doing that. Now, what was, was; but let's don't in the future give them contracts to abuse us again.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, says that reasonableness is something that could be subjective. Some people think that certain weapons systems may not be reasonable. Well, reasonableness is not some vague standard we picked out of the air. It comes directly from section 31.201-3(a) of the Defense Contract Audit Agency's ``Contract Audit Manual.'' That provision reads: ``A cost is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business.'' Every government auditor knows this standard. It is a standard that the Pentagon's own auditors apply to Halliburton. It is the standard that was flouted by the Bush administration, and it is the standard that my amendment would reaffirm. Now, this last argument, Halliburton's got an expertise and, therefore, they should get future contracts because we may not be able to find someone else with the expertise, and, therefore, we should ignore overcharges, unreasonable charges in excess of $100 million dollar in the past, that is an incredible argument. No matter how many times we may be the victims, or our taxpayers may be the victims, of waste, fraud and abuse, we should continue to pay? That is absurd. Now, I just submit that we are following the very clear standard in the law, and our amendment does not plow any new ground, and I would urge support for the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We have been working on this investigation about Halliburton for years, and we have written letters asking for hearings over and over again. The committee has not held a hearing on these overcharges. I do not know why the Armed Services Committee has not held a hearing on it, but it sounds to me a bit disingenuous when they say we have not had a chance to look at this matter. I support hardworking people on the ground that are working for Halliburton and other private contractors, but I do not think they would support the idea of their own corporate CEOs and shareholders getting rich unfairly for charges that are not reasonable. That is what this amendment is all about. So it seems to me that it rings a bit false when we hear these kind of arguments against the amendment. Oh, we have not looked at it. Why haven't they looked at it? Oh, it might affect people serving the troops now. Well, that is just absolutely untrue. So I continue to urge support for the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

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

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

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Three years ago, Congress and the American people were told that the Iraq War would be quick and inexpensive. Senior administration officials told us that rebuilding Iraq would cost less than $2 billion. And we were told that Iraq would be able to finance its own reconstruction with its oil revenues. Well, 3 years later, we know that these assurances were completely unfounded. The war has cost hundreds of billions of dollars. We squandered over $20 billion on reconstruction projects that have left basic services below prewar levels. And these massive costs have contributed to record budget deficits at home. There are multiple causes for the enormous burden placed on the taxpayer. President Bush and his advisors grossly underestimate the insurgency. They failed to engage our allies in the rebuilding effort, and they vastly overestimated the amount of oil Iraq could sell to funds its reconstruction. The amendment I am offering with Mr. Dingell addresses part of the problem, rampant waste, fraud and abuse in Federal contracting under the Bush administration. The largest contractor operating in Iraq is Halliburton. Government auditors have repeatedly caught Halliburton red-handed. They have found over a billion dollars in unreasonable and unsupported charges. Let me repeat this. Federal auditors have found Halliburton's unreasonable and unsupported bills exceed $1 billion. Yet over and over again, this administration has ignored its own auditors. The Pentagon's auditors have found over $260 million in unreasonable and unsupported costs when they examine Halliburton's no-bid contract to restore Iraq's oil field. Independent industry experts call Halliburton's charges ``highway robbery.'' But as this chart shows, the Bush administration ignored these findings and paid Halliburton for 97 percent of its overcharges and then gave Halliburton millions in additional bonuses. These same Pentagon auditors rejected $200 million in dining hall expenses because Halliburton charged for meals it never served to the troops. But the Bush administration ignored the auditors and paid 75 percent of the challenged costs and tripled Halliburton's profit on the contract. The auditors got so frustrated with Halliburton that they warned Pentagon officials not to enter into any more contracts with the company. But 3 days later, the Bush administration gave Halliburton a new $1.2 billion contract in Iraq. And these are not the only problems. More than 50 cases of contract fraud in Iraq are currently under investigation. And administration officials cannot account for over $8 billion in Iraqi oil proceeds. This kind of incompetent and egregious mismanagement is hard to believe. No matter how many times they bilk the taxpayer, politically favored companies keep getting more and more Federal contracts. The administration has a duty to safeguard taxpayer dollars, but it is shirking that responsibility. We need to pass this amendment to end this costly cycle. This is an amendment that is very simple. It will prohibit the administration from using the funds in this bill to award new contracts to any company that has overcharged the government by $100 million or more in Iraq. This is just common sense. No company that squanders over $100 million of taxpayers money should be rewarded with new contracts. If the administration will not protect the taxpayer against waste, fraud and abuse, the Congress must act. For the sake of the taxpayers and the troops, I urge support for this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I respect that. I agree with you. That is why we were very careful in the way we drafted this amendment.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, the system has failed because the Bush administration paid 97 percent of the charges that the Pentagon auditors found to be unreasonable. So our amendment is structured to apply in the future. We will have a chance to continue to look at this. I feel comfortable that this is not going to jeopardize anything that is going on in Iraq today and certainly not the existing contracts such as the ongoing logistical contract which Halliburton still has; but for the future, if any company has overcharged by $100 million, we should not be rushing out there and giving them a new contract. Existing contracts are existing contracts. They should not be rewarded for that overcharging.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to assure you we were very careful in drafting this amendment. It is prospective. It would not affect the funding of existing contracts for troop support. They will continue untouched. The amendment simply says we will not reward companies with new contracts after they overcharge the taxpayers by $100 million. I hope that will allay the gentleman's concerns.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, today we have the opportunity to recognize Ukraine's great strides since its emergence from the Iron Curtain. Indeed, the ``Orange Revolution'' ignited by the fraudulent elections of 2004 demonstrated the commitment of the Ukrainian people to a democratic future. By graduating Ukraine from Jackson-Vanik and extending Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR), we can help consolidate the Ukrainian government's adherence to this path. The Jackson-Vanik amendment, enacted in 1974, originally focused on free emigration, but it became a symbol for all basic human rights including political freedom, freedom from religious discrimination, and freedom for the press. While its candidacy for Jackson-Vanik graduation demonstrates Ukraine's significant progress on these issues, there are still major areas where further improvement is necessary. Specifically, the Ukrainian government and President Yushchenko must do more to live up to their pledge to fight anti-Semitism and condemn all ethnic and religious discrimination. Over the past several years, Ukraine's largest private university, known in Ukraine as MAUP, has become a hotbed of anti-Semitic activity. In 2005, the school hosted an anti-Zionist conference featuring white supremacist David Duke and other Holocaust deniers from around the world and its President fervently supported the President of Iran's call for the destruction of Israel. The school has published and distributed ``Mein Kampf' and ``The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,'' and leading figures at the school have petitioned to bar Jewish organization in Ukraine and ban Jewish texts. It is important that the Ukrainian government and President Yushchenko's ``Our Ukraine'' party have strongly condemned the university leaders. The Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs have called the school's activities unlawful. The time has come for the government to reexamine the school's certification and prosecute those responsible for violating Ukraine's anti-incitement laws. In addition, the government must take action to return communal religious property confiscated during the Soviet era through a standardized, timely, and transparent process. Jackson-Vanik graduation is an important step forward in the strategic relationship between the United States and Ukraine. But it is by no means an end to the need for scrutiny of Ukraine's adherence to fundamental human rights values. As a member of the Congressional Ukraine Caucus and a co-chair of the Congressional Task Force Against Anti-Semitism, I support this legislation, but I believe it is vital that we continue pushing Ukraine in the right direction.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support H.R. 2829, which reauthorizes the Office of National Drug Control Policy, ONDCP, including its National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign and High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas, HIDTA, programs. I want to begin by acknowledging the efforts of Mr. Souder and Mr. Cummings, the chairman and the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources. They have worked tirelessly to develop this legislation. They are true leaders in the fight against drug abuse. I would like to recognize Chairman Davis as well for the bipartisan way he has approached this issue. Drug use is an enormous problem in our Nation, ruining lives, filling our prisons and sometimes terrorizing our communities. Many people are not even aware how drugs adversely affect them. In addition to those addicted and their families, drug abuse affects all of us. Theft and violent crime are closely tied to drug abuse. In addition, billions of dollars are spent on health care due to drug abuse, a burden to the entire Nation. In order to combat illegal drug use, the Federal Government must attack from different avenues using many agencies of the government. For example, the State Department works with other countries. The Drug Enforcement Agency enforces drug laws. The Department of Health and Human Services must deal with breaking addiction. ONDCP's mandate is to coordinate all of these efforts in a comprehensive strategy, coordinating with State, local, and international governments and institutions. The bill before us today ensures that there is one place in the Federal Government that combats all aspects of the drug problem through drug prevention, treatment, enforcement, interdiction, and supply reduction. ONDCP has a vital role to play in our efforts to reduce the use of illegal drugs. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on passage of this legislation.

Mr. WAXMAN

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

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I think this is a good amendment. After this amendment is disposed of, and I hope favorably, I will be offering another amendment on the same subject of bioterrorism. I think any protections that we put into place at this time of threat of terrorism are wise. I will discuss my amendment at the appropriate time, but I join my colleague from Michigan in urging support for this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers) misunderstands this proposal, and it is different than the previous ones, because the State laws that we are talking about here are, for example, the State of Connecticut's legislature is currently considering a law to say that a grocery store will post information. I am not talking about warning labels, but they can put up a sign in the grocery store that certain fish ought not to be used by pregnant women. There have been an estimated 300,000 newborns who are exposed to those dangerously high maternal mercury blood levels from, among other things, fish. So, one, I do not think it is constitutional for the Federal Government to say a State cannot ask grocery stores in that State to put up a warning sign. But the State, to say that we want all 50 States to put up warning signs in the grocery stores, I do not think the Federal Government, Food and Drug Administration has ever passed that kind of requirement. They deal with labels on food. This is not a label on food issue. This is simply an internal State advisory, and those State laws ought not to be put at risk. As far as the risk/benefit of eating fish, and you are healthier even if you eat fish with more mercury and PCBs, that talks about adults. We are talking about, in this amendment, pregnant women. And we ought to let them have that information, especially if the States adopt the kind of law that Connecticut is looking at. And we should not block that from happening. Mr. Chairman, I urge support for the amendment.

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

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to control the time in opposition, although I will speak in favor of this amendment.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to close on this amendment. This amendment is a supplement to the amendment that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers) adopted. This is what food and drug officials at the State levels have said. When you consider the local and State food safety programs, our first line of defense against acts of terrorism involve the food supply. This amendment would allow them to act without having to go to the Federal Government to ask for permission. The bill says even if there is an imminent hazard, the State has to go to the Federal Government to get permission. That is absurd. The New York Agriculture Department said that New York would be left without any means to stop contaminated food from entering the Nation's food supply. Florida stated this legislation would make it more difficult to mitigate the effects of an intentional bioterrorist agent food adulteration. I think those who are imposing this amendment are very much misguided. Listen to what the States have had to say about this. These are the ones that are going to have to deal with any bioterrorist attack at the front lines. Especially after what we saw with Hurricane Katrina, let us empower the local people to act and not make them have to go hat in hand to seek a bureaucratic solution, which may take time from the Federal Government to allow them to act. My amendment would allow the States to act, especially if it is an imminent problem. That should not be taken away, which would happen if we don't pass this amendment. I ask for an ``aye'' vote.

Mr. WAXMAN. Well, Mr. Chairman, I will be in opposition to the amendment and claim the time in opposition.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, the previous amendment was a good amendment. It provided for a one-time certification. That was important to do. The only requirement is the Secretary of Health and Human Services consults with the Department of Homeland Security to certify that the bill will not pose additional risks from terrorist attacks before it goes into effect. That is worthwhile. That is why I supported that amendment. It doesn't require them to consult with the States, look at different approaches the States may be using. What we are proposing to do is to go even further in the area of protection against bioterrorist threats. My amendment allows the States to retain the authority to decide what is important in preparing for and responding to terrorism threats. If a Governor or State legislature certifies a State action in this regard, it is not going to be preempted. The States will be able to make those decisions on bioterrorism, should, God forbid, such a thing happen. As the Nation's first responders to bioterrorist attacks, State and local governments have worked to have effective programs that can respond flexibly should a nightmare occur. These State food safety officials have stated repeatedly that they are deeply concerned that H.R. 4167 will undermine the States' ability to effectively prevent and respond to bioterrorist attacks. The States learned from Hurricane Katrina that it is ill-advised to rely on Federal agencies to solve their problems when a disaster occurs. Under H.R. 4167, even with this last amendment, the States will be in exactly that position, because they will have to rely on the Federal Government. Under the bill, H.R. 4167, States will be required to go through a bureaucratic Federal process merely to protect their citizens. Even in the case of an imminent hazard, States must make a series of findings, and even then are only authorized to establish a requirement which could be interpreted to require the passage of a new law or promulgation of new regulations. In the face of a determined terrorist threat, this burdensome approach seems highly unwarranted and potentially disastrous. My amendment will go a long way to addressing these shortfalls. It is an amendment that State food officials think is merited, and they have warned us about any weakening of their ability to respond to any bioterrorist threat. That is what has become the basis for this amendment. I strongly urge support for the Waxman amendment and hope that this amendment will supplement the Federal requirement that the Rogers amendment is putting into place. I urge support for the Waxman antiterrorism amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.