Henry Waxman

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I don't think consumer confidence is going to be bolstered when we pass a law that the State Attorneys General say would strip State governments of the ability to protect their residents through State laws and regulations relating to the safety of food and food packaging. Some of the more obvious State level warnings that almost certainly would be challenged include consumer warnings about mercury contamination of fish, arsenic in bottled water, lead in ceramic tableware, the alcohol content in candies, the content of fats and oils in foods, and postharvest pesticides applicable to fruits and vegetables. The States would not be allowed to do that. Now, the previous speaker said that we ought to have a Federal requirement. But he was mistaken when he said that if there were no Federal requirement States can pursue their own standards. He is wrong because the bill before us would stop the States from pursuing their own standards unless the Federal Government allowed them to do so. And I think that is an intrusion on States' rights, a usurpation of power by Washington and an ability for the industries involved to be able to make their claim to the Federal Government to stop States from doing exactly what they think is appropriate to protect their public and to bolster consumer confidence. I don't think that the confidence of the consumer should be bolstered when we have a bill on the floor that has been around for a number of years and no committee has ever held a hearing on it. We did not allow the scientists to come in and tell us whether it is a good idea or not. We didn't hear the problems from the industry that should justify this bill. We didn't hear the opponents and the arguments that they might make. Instead, in committee we had a mark-up where Members could debate what we were told by different groups, but not based on a hearing record. I think that the confidence of the American people in Congress should be very, very low; and if this bill passes the confidence of the American public about their food supply should be also in doubt. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just want to read a portion of a letter from Tommy Irvin who is from the Georgia Department of Agriculture. And he said, ``The bill is craftily written to disguise its true effects on our authority to protect consumers. Both vague and broad in scope, this legislation will, in reality, go far beyond the stated purpose of uniformity. The real effect of this legislation will be the deregulation of the United States Food Industry.'' Madam Chairman and my colleagues, we have at the Federal level, the Department of Agriculture. The Department of Agriculture has a dual mission: to protect consumers from unsafe agriculture products, particularly meat and chicken. But they also have the obligation to bolster the agriculture industries in this country. And they always have this tension about who to respond to first. We also have the Food and Drug Agency, and they regulate food additives and the food supply that the USDA does not cover. Well, as Representative Rosa DeLauro mentioned, we ought to have one food agency, but we have never been able to do that because people fight over their turf. Well, while the Federal Government is fighting over its turf, this bill would take away the jurisdiction from the States to protect their own people, and that is why we never hear a bill labeled as the ``usurpation of power in Washington to take away from the States the ability to protect consumers of food.'' They do not call it that. They call it the ``National Uniformity Bill for the Food Product,'' or something along those lines. They always have a very nice sounding label for legislation. Well, do not be fooled by the label that this bill has, because it misleads the consumer and the American public into thinking we are doing something to protect them, when I fear it is going to make them weaker. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. And in response to the gentleman's point, which I think is an excellent one, industries in this country often have to meet State standards as well as Federal standards. I have always heard that if it ain't broke, why fix it. And I have never heard a reason why we need this bill. What are we fixing? What is the problem? I do not see what the problem is, except some people would like to overturn State laws. And if they have the case to do that, they ought to make it at the State level, or they ought to come to the Federal Government and say this particular law is too burdensome; we ought to have a Federal law in its place. But that is not what we are having proposed to us today. We are having proposed to us a bill that just would, in a blanket way, allow the preemption of all duly adopted laws at the State level. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. May I inquire of my colleague how many speakers he has remaining?

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will close the debate on our side. Madam Chairman and my colleagues, let me just go through the kinds of laws we are talking about. There are 50 State laws regulating the safety of milk. They are not identical. And I don't know if there will be one uniform law for the safety of milk at the Federal level, and I am not sure that it would make sense to have it. There may be differences that are justified. But that debate could go on, and it could be resolved by itself. But meanwhile, we shouldn't jeopardize 50 laws on the subject when there is no Federal law to take its place. There are 50 State laws regulating safety of food in restaurants. Why should the restaurants in a State be regulated by Washington if their State chooses to have a food safety disclosure or other food law? There are 10 State laws regulating the safety of shellfish. Why should those laws be eliminated? There is an Alabama law regulating infested, moldy, or decayed pecans and other nuts. That may be a problem that Alabama has. Why shouldn't they be able to act on it, and why should we have to have that same law elsewhere or have no law anywhere on the subject? California law requiring consumers to be notified when food contains contaminants that cause cancer or birth defects, a California law limiting the amount of lead in candy, a Florida law regulating labeling of citrus fruit and citrus products, a Maine law requiring disclosure of the risk of eating smoked alewives, whatever that may be. A Maryland law, prohibiting the sale of frozen food that has been previously thawed. A Minnesota law requiring labeling of the types of wild rice. A Mississippi law requiring the labeling of farm-raised catfish. A Virginia law prohibiting the removal of sell-by date labels, a Wisconsin law requiring a label showing the age and type of cheese made in Wisconsin. I don't know whether those are all good laws or not, but the legislatures probably had hearings, and they got the input from people who are supporting it, and opposing it. And they adopted it and their Governors signed the laws. We are now about to overturn those State laws with a bill that had no hearing here in the Congress of the United States, and will turn it over to the FDA, a Federal bureaucracy, to decide whether those States may have those laws in their States still in effect. I think it is wrong. I do not see the problem it is solving. I think that this is legislation that has been poorly thought out. I hope we get a chance to offer amendments to the bill next week when we start considering it. Especially since it has never had a day of hearings, we ought to have an open rule. There are a limited number of issues to debate. We ought to at least be able to debate them and have votes on those issues so that Members can make a determined judgment as to whether this bill ought to pass the House of Representatives. I urge a ``no'' vote on the bill. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. WAXMAN. I do recall and I can explain the situation.

Mr. WAXMAN. It does because there was no nutritional labeling at the State level. It had been done by the industry voluntarily, and they had different kinds of labels, and it was not in a way that we could compare the calorie content, the carbohydrate content, the fat content. So we decided that since this was all under Federal jurisdiction anyway, we ought to standardize the labeling. It was not an issue of usurping the power from the States because the States look to the FDA to make that decision.

Mr. WAXMAN. No, of course.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, this resolution is an important first step to cut off direct aid to the Palestinian Authority now that Hamas will be in power. However, it is only one component of the dramatic overhaul that needs to take place as we redefine our relationship with the new Palestinian government. Responsible for attacks that have murdered hundreds and injured thousands, Hamas is first and foremost a terrorist organization. Its fund raising and training operations run through the same shadowy networks as Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah. Its philosophy and practice are grounded in the spread of extremist hatred, anti-Semitism and violence. The United States must set a strong example and be firm in urging the international community to join us in cutting off all funding and diplomatic contacts with the Palestinian Authority once Hamas takes control. The Palestinian election may have been conducted in a free and fair manner, but it does not make the Hamas victory any more legitimate. Until it disarms, renounces violence, and recognizes Israel's right to exist, the group should continue to be dealt with as a rogue entity. There is no room for ambiguity. Governments that wage the global war on terrorism should not be propping up a terrorist regime. International organizations that believe in the peace process should not be financing a Palestinian leadership bent on Israel's destruction. Nations that disavow anti-Semitism should not be providing assistance that would give an even greater pulpit for Hamas to spew its hatred. It is alarming that despite these realities President Putin and others have made overtures to Hamas leaders. There should be no distinction between terrorists in Chechnya who target Russian school children and those from the West Bank and Gaza who blow up Israeli pizza stores and public buses. Equivocation only emboldens their use of such heinous tactics. If there is hope of pressuring Hamas to change, the world must unite behind a clear message: We will not support a terrorist-state, but stand ready to assist when and if a Palestinian government emerges that is ready, willing and able to embrace a peaceful future.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, it is with some hesitation that I rise in support of the U.S.-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement or FTA. As the home to the 5th Fleet of the U.S. Navy, Bahrain is a key Gulf ally. I believe this agreement will reinforce that bond with stronger economic ties. The Bahrain FTA also presents an opportunity to build upon trade agreements with Morocco, Jordan, Israel and the Palestinian Authority and provides an incentive for economic integration throughout the region. Another reason I support the agreement is that the Bahrain government has formally abolished all laws related to the Arab League's boycott of Israel. This is an important precedent for the upcoming FTA negotiations with the UAE, Oman, Egypt, and other Middle East nations. While I am disappointed that the Saudi Arabian government refused to take the same action in the process of its accession to the WorId Trade Organization, I am hopeful that future trade agreements will be an effective mechanism to make this unfair and illegal discrimination a relic of the past. In addition, Bahrain has taken significant steps to adopt laws that reflect the five core standards of the International Labor Organization and the USTR has agreed to periodically review Bahraini compliance with these laws. There was an exchange of letters to clarify that the U.S. can seek enforcement of Bahrain's labor laws under the Labor Chapter of the FTA. Labor laws should be enforceable in every FTA. While the issue should have been dealt with inside of the agreement, rather than in a side letter, the Bahrain FTA highlights the missed opportunities on labor protections in our trade agreements with Chile, Singapore and Central America. The reason I hesitate is that the Bahrain FTA also has a series of pharmaceutical protections to delay the approval and availability of generic medicines. Provisions such as these, which have been included in the intellectual property chapter of a number of recent agreements, are a serious mistake. They fail to take into account the needs of poor countries where the absence of generic competition can mean the difference between life and death. They undermine the Doha Declaration, which was adopted to make it easier for countries to respond in the event of a public health crisis. They do not reflect the careful balance in U.S. law between the protection of innovation and access to affordable medicine. I voted against the Central America and Morocco FTAs precisely because I felt strongly that the adoption of these measures by such poor countries would significantly reduce access to medicine. The difference here is that Bahrain is a relatively wealthy nation with a strong public health structure. Health care in Bahrain is delivered through a system of public hospitals and clinics that are available for free to Bahraini citizens and accessible to foreign residents for a nominal fee. While the FTA's pharmaceutical rules are ill-conceived and will create additional burden and expense for the Bahrain government, the changes should not diminish access to care. It is hard to fathom, therefore, that the same provisions are being negotiated right now for an FTA with four Andean nations. Bahrain has a population under 1 million people and a low incidence of infectious diseases. In contrast, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia have a combined population of nearly 100 million and more than 200,000 patients suffering from HIV/AIDS. Health care coverage in these countries is available to few and many live in extreme poverty. The contrast is stark. Yet, the USTR is adamantly pursuing a ``one size fits all'' approach that would require the Andean nations to adopt the same pharmaceutical protections adopted in Bahrain. The pharmaceutical industry has spoken openly about its efforts to raise drug prices and profit margins around the world. Drug companies are aggressively trying to use trade agreements to force policy changes they could not otherwise achieve. It is time for the USTR to stop callously helping them put profits ahead of public health. The damage in Bahrain may be limited, but the consequences elsewhere may be severe.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the gentleman from Pennsylvania spoke with courage and conviction about the war in Iraq, and there is no one in this body who knows more about our national defense and has devoted more of his life to our troops and our security than Jack Murtha. But evidently his speech has prompted this stunt that the Republicans are pulling here to force a vote on a resolution never considered by any committee. Well, I must tell the Members that like the intelligence that led to war, the resolution before this body is a fake. Republicans are describing this resolution as a Murtha resolution, but it is not his language and differs in key ways from his proposal. One of the points Mr. Murtha raised yesterday was the misuse of intelligence on Iraq. He called the war a flawed policy wrapped in illusion. Like Mr. Murtha, I voted for that war. And like him, I have profound concerns about the intelligence, that it was warped and twisted to justify an invasion. My concerns are deeply personal. I voted for the war resolution because the President said Iraq would soon brandish nuclear bombs; and like millions of Americans, I was misled. I raised concerns about the nuclear intelligence in a letter to the President on March 17, 2003, before any bullets were fired and before the war started, and I am going to attach this letter to my statement, but I want to read a part of it. I wrote: ``Dear, Mr. President, in the last 10 days, it has become incontrovertibly clear that a key piece of evidence you and others in the administration have cited regarding Iraq's efforts to obtain nuclear weapons is a hoax. The evidence in question is correspondence that indicates that Iraq sought to obtain nuclear material from an African country. For several months this evidence has been a central part of the U.S. case against Iraq. It has now been conceded that this evidence was a forgery. Even more troubling, the CIA, which has been aware of this information since 2001, has never regarded the evidence as reliable. ``The implications of this fact are profound. It means that a key part of the case you have been building against Iraq is evidence that your own intelligence experts do not believe is credible. It is hard to imagine how this situation could have developed. The two most obvious explanations, knowing deception or unfathomable incompetence, both have immediate and serious implications.'' I made that request 2\1/2\ years ago, and I am still waiting for an answer. The President has never explained how forged evidence could become a cornerstone in the case for the war on Iraq. Yesterday, the gentleman from Pennsylvania spoke with courage and conviction about the war in Iraq. There is no one in this body who knows more about our national defense--and who has devoted more of his life--to our troops and our security than Jack Murtha. His speech has prompted this stunt by the Republicans to force a vote on a resolution never considered by any committee. Like the intelligence that led the Nation to war, the resolution before this body is a fake. Republicans are describing this resolution as the Murtha resolution. But it is not his language and differs in key ways from his proposal. One of the points Mr. Murtha raised yesterday was the misuse of the intelligence on Iraq. He called the war ``a flawed policy wrapped in illusion.'' Like Mr. Murtha, I voted for the war. And like him, I have profound concerns about how the intelligence was warped and twisted to justify an invasion. My concerns are deeply personal. I voted for the war resolution because the President said Iraq would soon brandish nuclear bombs. And like millions of Americans, I was misled. I raised concerns about the nuclear intelligence in a letter to the President on March 17, 2003--before any bullets were fired and before the war started. I ask unanimous consent to introduce this letter into the Record. I wrote: Dear Mr. President: . . . In the last ten days, it has become incontrovertibly clear that a key piece of evidence you and other Administration officials have cited regarding Iraq's efforts to obtain nuclear weapons is a hoax. . . . The evidence in question is correspondence that indicates that Iraq sought to obtain nuclear material from an African country, Niger. For several months, this evidence has been a central part of the -U.S. case against Iraq. . . . [I]n your State of the Union address, you stated: ``The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.'' It has now been conceded that this evidence was a forgery. . . . Even more troubling, . . . the CIA, which has been aware of this information since 2001, has never regarded the evidence as reliable. The implications of this fact are profound: it means that a key part of the case you have been building against Iraq is evidence that your own intelligence experts . . . do not believe is credible. It is hard to imagine how this situation could have developed. The two most obvious explanations--knowing deception or unfathomable incompetence--both have immediate and serious implications. I made that request 2\1/2\ years ago. And I am still waiting for an answer. The President has never explained how forged evidence could become a cornerstone of the case for war in Iraq. And this body has been part of the cover-up. We've averted our eyes and shut down our oversight committees. The Washington Republicans who run this body are afraid to ask questions and embarrass the President. They have abrogated their solemn constitutional obligations to hold the executive branch accountable for its abuses. As the ranking Democrat on the House Committee in charge of oversight and investigations, I have requested hearings to review: (1) The way intelligence was manipulated by people in this administration. On my website--www.reform.democrats.house.gov_there is a report of 237 misleading and inaccurate statements made by the President, Vice President, Secretary of State and Defense and the National Security Adviser, based on what they knew at the time and not what we learned later. (2) An investigation of prison treatment by the U.S. after Abu Graib. (3) An investigation of the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame for political purposes, even though it jeopardized our national security. (4) An investigation of the secret meetings Vice President Cheney had with energy executives regarding our energy policy. The Republicans should do the work required under our Constitution-- do the oversight to provide the checks and balances to avoid a concentration of power in an imperial and out of touch administration. House of Representatives, Committee on Government Reform, Washington, DC, March 17, 2003. The President, The White House, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. President: I am writing regarding a matter of grave concern. Upon your order, our armed forces will soon initiate the first preemptive war in our nation's history. The most persuasive justification for this war is that we must act to prevent Iraq from developing nuclear weapons. In the last ten days, however, it has become incontrovertibly clear that a key piece of evidence you and other Administration officials have cited regarding Iraq's efforts to obtain nuclear weapons is a hoax. What's more, the Central Intelligence Agency questioned the veracity of the evidence at the same time you and other Administration officials were citing it in public statements. This is a breach of the highest order, and the American people are entitled to know how it happened. As you know, I voted for the congressional resolution condemning Iraq and authorizing the use of force. Despite serious misgivings, I supported the resolution because I believed congressional approval would significantly improve the likelihood of effective U.N. action. Equally important, I believed that you had access to reliable intelligence information that merited deference. Like many other members, I was particularly influenced by your views about Iraq's nuclear intentions. Although chemical and biological weapons can inflict casualties, no argument for attacking Iraq is as compelling as the possibility of Saddam Hussein brandishing nuclear bombs. That, obviously, is why the evidence in this area is so crucial, and why so many have looked to you for honest and credible information on Iraq's nuclear capability. The evidence in question is correspondence that indicates that Iraq sought to obtain nuclear material from an African country, Niger. For several months, this evidence has been a central part of the U.S. case against Iraq. On December 19, the State Department filed a response to Iraq's disarmament declaration to the U.N. Security Council. The State Department response stated: ``The Declaration ignores efforts to procure uranium from Niger.'' A month later, in your State of the Union address, you stated: ``The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.'' Defense Secretary Rumsfeld subsequently cited the evidence in briefing reporters. It has now been conceded that this evidence was a forgery. On March 7, the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, reported that the evidence that Iraq sought nuclear materials from Niger was ``not authentic.'' As subsequent media accounts indicated, the evidence contained ``crude errors,'' such as a ``childlike signature'' and the use of stationary from a military government in Niger that has been out of power for over a decade. Even more troubling, however, the CIA, which has been aware of this information since 2001, has never regarded the evidence as reliable. The implications of this fact are profound: it means that a key part of the case you have been building against Iraq is evidence that your own intelligence experts at the Central Intelligence Agency do not believe is credible. It is hard to imagine how this situation could have developed. The two most obvious explanations--knowing deception or unfathomable incompetence--both have immediate and serious implications. It is thus imperative that you address this matter without delay and provide an alternative explanation, if there is one. The rest of this letter will explain my concerns in detail. Use of the Evidence by U.S. Officials The evidence that Iraq sought to purchase uranium from an African country was first revealed by the British government on September 24, 2002, when Prime Minister Tony Blair released a 50-page report on Iraqi efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction. As the New York Times reported in a front-page article, one of the two ``chief new elements'' in the report was the claim that Iraq had ``sought to acquire uranium in Africa that could be used to make nuclear weapons.'' This evidence subsequently became a significant part of the U.S. case against Iraq. On December 7, Iraq filed its weapons declaration with the United Nations Security Council. The U.S. response relied heavily on the evidence that Iraq had sought to obtain uranium from Africa. For example, this is how the New York Times began its front-page article on December 13 describing the U.S. response: ``American intelligence agencies have reached a preliminary conclusion that Iraq's 12,000 page declaration of its weapons program fails to account for chemical and biological agents missing when inspectors left Iraq four years ago, American officials and United Nations diplomats said today. ``In addition, Iraq's declaration on its nuclear program, they say, leaves open a host of questions. Among them is why Iraq was seeking to buy uranium in Africa in recent years.'' The official U.S. response was provided on December 19, when Secretary of State Colin Powell appeared before the Security Council. As the Los Angeles Times reported, ``A one- page State Department fact sheet . . . lists what Washington considers the key omissions and deceptions in Baghdad's Dec. 7 weapons declaration.'' One of the eight ``key omissions and deceptions'' was the failure to explain Iraq's attempts to purchase uranium from an African country. Specifically, the State Department fact sheet contains the following points under the heading ``Nuclear Weapons'': ``The Declaration ignores efforts to procure uranium from Niger. Why is the Iraqi regime hiding their uranium procurement?'' A copy of this fact sheet is enclosed with this letter. The Iraqi efforts to obtain uranium from Africa were deemed significant enough to be included in your State of the Union address to Congress. You stated: ``The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.'' As the Washington Post reported the next day, ``the president seemed quite specific as he ticked off the allegations last night, including the news that Iraq had secured uranium from Africa for the purpose of making nuclear bombs.'' A day later, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told reporters at a news briefing that Iraq ``recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa.'' Knowledge of the Unreliability of the Evidence The world first learned that the evidence linking Iraq to attempts to purchase uranium from Africa was forged from the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Mohamed ElBaradei. On March 7, Director ElBaradei reported to the U.N. Security Council: ``Based on thorough analysis, the IAEA has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that these documents--which formed the basis for reports of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger--are in fact not authentic. We have therefore concluded that these specific allegations are unfounded.'' Recent accounts in the news media have provided additional details. According to the Washington Post, the faked evidence included ``a series of letters between Iraqi agents and officials in the central African nation of Niger.'' The article stated that the forgers ``made relatively crude errors that eventually gave them away--including names and titles that did not match up with the individuals who held office at the time the letters were purportedly written.'' CNN reported: ``one of the documents purports to be a letter signed by Tandjia Mamadou, the president of Niger, talking about the uranium deal with Iraq. On it [is] a childlike signature that is clearly not his. Another, written on paper from a 1980s military government in Niger, bears the date of October 2000 and the signature of a man who by then had not been foreign minister of Niger for 14 years.'' U.S. intelligence officials had doubts about the veracity of the evidence long before Director ElBaradei's report. The Los Angeles Times reported on March 15 that ``the CIA first heard allegations that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger in late 2001'' when ``the existence of the documents was reported to [the CIA] second- or third-hand.'' The Los Angeles Times quotes one CIA official as saying: ``We included that in some of our reporting, although it was all caveated because we had concerns about the accuracy of that information.'' The Washington Post reported on March 13: ``The CIA . . . had questions about `whether they were accurate,' said one intelligence official, and it decided not to include them in its file on Iraq's program to procure weapons of mass destruction.'' There have been suggestions by some Administration officials that there may be other evidence besides the forged documents that shows Iraq tried to obtain uranium from an African country. For instance, CIA officials recently stated that ``U.S. concerns regarding a possible uranium agreement between Niger and Iraq were not based solely on the documents which are now known to be fraudulent.'' The CIA provided this other information to the IAEA along with the forged documents. After reviewing this complete body of evidence, the IAEA stated: ``we have found to date no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq.'' Ultimately, the IAEA concluded that ``these specific allegations are unfounded.'' questions These facts raise troubling questions. It appears that at the same time that you, Secretary Rumsfeld, and State Department officials were citing Iraq's efforts to obtain uranium from Africa as a crucial part of the case against Iraq, U.S. intelligence officials regarded this very same evidence as unreliable. If true, this is deeply disturbing: it would mean that your Administration asked the U.N. Security Council, the Congress, and the American people to rely on information that your own experts knew was not credible. Your statement to Congress during the State of the Union, in particular, raises a host of questions. The statement is worded in a way that suggests it was carefully crafted to be both literally true and deliberately misleading at the same time. The statement itself--``The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa''--may be technically accurate, since this appears to be the British position. But given what the CIA knew at the time, the implication you intended--that there was credible evidence that Iraq sought uranium from Africa--was simply false. To date, the White House has avoided explaining why the Administration relied on this forged evidence in building its case against Iraq. The first Administration response, which was provided to the Washington Post, was ``we fell for it.'' But this is no longer credible in light of the information from the CIA. Your spokesman, Ari Fleischer, was asked about this issue at a White House news briefing on March 14, but as the following transcript reveals, he claimed ignorance and avoided the question: Q: Ari, as the president said in his State of the Union address, the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. And since then, the IAEA said that those were forged documents---- Mr. Fleischer: I'm sorry, whose statement was that? Q: The President, in his State of the Union address. Since then, the IAEA has said those were forged documents. Was the administration aware of any doubts about these documents, the authenticity of the documents, from any government agency or department before it was submitted to the IAEA? Mr. Fleisher: These are matters that are always reviewed with an eye toward the various information that comes in and is analyzed by a variety of different people. The President's concerns about Iraq come from multiple places, involving multiple threats that Iraq can possess, and these are matters that remain discussed. ``Thank you [end of briefing]. Plainly, more explanation is needed. I urge you to provide to me and to the relevant committees of Congress a full accounting of what you knew about the reliability of the evidence linking Iraq to uranium in Africa, when you knew this, and why you and senior officials in the Administration presented the evidence to the U.N. Security Council, the Congress, and the American people without disclosing the doubts of the CIA. In particular, I urge you to address: (1) Whether CIA officials communicated their doubts about the credibility of the forged evidence to other Administration officials, including officials in the Department of State, the Department of Defense, the National Security Council, and the White House; (2) Whether the CIA had any input into the ``Fact Sheet'' distributed by the State Department on December 19, 2002; and (3) Whether the CIA reviewed your statement in the State of the Union address regarding Iraq's attempts to obtain uranium from Africa and, if so, what the CIA said about the statement. Given the urgency of the situation, I would appreciate an expeditious response to these questions. Sincerely, Henry A. Waxman, Ranking Minority Member.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, 75 percent of the so-called savings from Medicaid come from higher cost sharing, reduced services, or barriers to sick people getting care and old people and people just scraping by having their needs met. But mostly they come from kids. Fully half of the people affected by the reduced benefits will be children, and many of them will be children with special needs and disabilities. These are the kids with spina bifida, cerebral palsy. These are the kids with developmental disabilities and autism. These are the kids with mental illness. These are the children that need a full array of medical support and rehabilitative services. These are the kids where the care demands are endless, where families need help to support them and care for them. Parents of special needs children know that. They know that the idea of cost sharing for these kids so that they do not overutilize services is ridiculous. One of Medicaid strength for all children, but particularly special needs children, has been the benefit known as EPSDT, or early and periodic screening, diagnosis and treatment. That is a lot of words for one simple concept. Screen kids early. Find and diagnose their health problems. Give them the care they need. Give them eyeglasses. Give them mental health services, give them physical therapy. Make them into the healthiest individuals possible. Let them realize their full potential. But this bill changes that. It takes away these services for millions of kids with family incomes just above the poverty line. It takes away benefits. It imposes premiums and cost sharing that we know will be barriers to care. In fact, CBO estimates the savings because people will not get the care they need. What kind of sense does this make? I urge my colleagues to vote against it. Mr. Speaker, this bill, the so-called Deficit Reduction Act, is not about reducing the deficit. If that were the concern of the majority, they wouldn't be cutting taxes for the wealthy and adding to the deficit for all Americans. This bill is not about taking on the special interests who can afford to give up some of their corporate welfare. You don't see provisions in this bill that take away overpayments for HMOs. You don't see any provisions asking the big drug companies to give a fairer price to Medicaid. This bill isn't about helping Children's Hospitals or providers that serve the uninsured get better support. Instead, this bill requires them to take inadequate payments when managed care enrollees end up in their emergency rooms. This bill asks them to absorb lost dollars because they either have to eat the cost of copayments that poor kids and persons with disabilities can't afford to pay--or else turn them away without giving them the medical care they need. What this bill is about is putting the burden of reducing Medicaid expenditures on those least able to bear it. Fully three of every four dollars this bill ``saves' in Medicaid come from higher cost-sharing or reduced services ir barriers to care for the people who need help the most. Who are we talking about here? This is going to have the greatest effect on low-income children. Fully half of the people affected by the reduced benefits will be kids. And many of those children are children with special needs and disabilities. These are kids with spina bifida and cerebral palsy. These are kids with developmental disabilities and autism. These are kids with mental illness. These are children that need a full array of medical, support and rehabilitative services. These are kids where the care demands are endless, where families need help to support them and care for them. Parents of children with special needs know that. They know that private health insurance, even if they could get it, doesn't have the services these kids need. They know that the idea of cost-sharing so that services aren't overutilized for these kids makes no sense. One of Medicaid's strengths has been the benefit known as EPSDT, or early and periodic screening, diagnosis and treatment. That's a lot of words for one simple concept. Screen kids early and find and diagnose their health problems, and then give them the care they need to treat them. Give them eye glasses. Give them mental health services. Give them physical therapy. Make them into the healthiest individuals possible. Let them realize their full potential. This bill changes that. It takes away these services for millions of kids, with family incomes just above the poverty line. It takes away benefits. It imposes cost sharing so that there will be barriers to getting service. So what if their family is struggling to exist on a little over $1000 month. Let's ask them to pay 5 percent of that in cost-sharing. If they can't afford it, and it keeps their kids from getting services, well it's just too bad. What kind of sense does this make. Noone benefits if kids don't get the health services they need to grow up as healthy and productive individuals. The Republican majority tries to justify this by saying copayments haven't been increased for years. That is a bogus argument. The fact is low-income people spend an increasing portion of their income on out- of-pocket medical expenses. A recent study showed that between 1997 and 2002, their out-ofpocket obligations increased twice as fast as their incomes. That's the relevant point. This bill also puts some heartless barriers in the way of moderate income seniors who need nursing home care. People who innocently help their children or their grandchildren by giving them some small amount of their savings, or people who unselfishly give money to their church or to charities, find themselves unable to get Medicaid help when they need it. They are accused of transferring their assets to get Medicaid to pay their nursing home bills. At the very point when they are desperately in need of Medicaid help, they get penalized for a transfer that might have occurred 5 years ago. They haven't got the money to pay for their own care. They can't get Medicaid. What will happen to them? And if they do get into a nursing home, what will happen to the quality of care that nursing home can provide if they aren't being paid? Is this the way we want to treat our seniors? This bill deliberately tries to evoke the fear of illegal immigrants to take benefits away from needy people. With food stamps, the rhetoric is about illegal immigrants, but the reality is that immigrants who are here legally, and have been in the country legally for 5 years, get food stamps taken away. Why? Because the Republican majority evidently feels they can take help away from them with impunity because they are powerless. It is similar in Medicaid. This bill imposes a requirement of documentation of citizenship that is going to block many needy citizens from getting necessary care. In order to be covered, people will have to document their citizenship with passports or birth certificates. Many poor and elderly people don't have those papers available. So they simply won't be helped. There is a pattern here. Whether we are talking about arbitrarily taking food stamps from legal immigrants or putting barriers to care in front of sick children, this bill takes its savings from people who are the most vulnerable and in need of help. They haven't got high priced lobbyists to argue for them. They're not getting special treatment and big tax breaks. They are just at the end of the line, relying on our health care programs. If you've got a conscience, if you've got compassion, you cannot support this budget reconciliation bill. Stand up and insist on finding a fairer way. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the life of my former colleague, Edward Ross Roybal. Ed Roybal lived an extraordinary life. As a young man growing up during the Great Depression, he joined the Civilian Conservation Corps. Later he served his country in World War II. He made his jump into politics--and into history--in 1949. Ed was elected to the Los Angeles City Council, becoming the Council's first Hispanic Member in over 100 years. After 13 years of distinguished service to Los Angeles, Ed was elected to the House of Representatives. From 1963 to 1993, Ed Roybal served this House--and his constituents--with distinction. He was a quiet power on the Appropriations Committee and used his enormous influence to help those who needed help the most. He worked tirelessly for funding health and civil rights programs and spearheaded efforts to restore funding for programs benefiting the nation's elderly population. He was ultimately successful in preserving the widely used Meals on Wheels program. In 1976, Ed was one of the founding members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and served as its first chair. He was also one of the founding members of the National Association of Latino Elected Officials, NALEO, as well as the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute. After deciding not to run for re-election in 1992, Ed's daughter, Lucille Roybal-Allard was elected to Congress to carry on Ed's essential work. His service to his community did not end when he left public office. In 1993, Ed established a non-profit research organization committed to efficient health and human service delivery to the elderly. The center is now known as the Edward R. Roybal Institute for Applied Gerontology. In 2001, Ed Roybal received the Presidential Citizens Medal from President Clinton. And in 2004, the Mexican-American Political Association honored him as a ``Latino Legend of the 20th Century.'' Ed Roybal will always be remembered as a dedicated community activist and a devoted public servant who always made the needs of those he served paramount. His life and work will continue to serve as an example to us all. I was proud to have served in the House with him and I consider him a friend and mentor.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, today, I am pleased to introduce the ``Child, Worker and Consumer-Safe Chemicals Act of 2005,'' also known as the ``Kid Safe Chemicals Act.'' I am particularly pleased that Representatives Solis, Slaughter, and Pallone are joining me in this effort to create a non-toxic environment to protect the health of children, workers and others. The legislation we introduce today is companion legislation to an important bill that was introduced in the U.S. Senate earlier this year. Senators Lautenberg and Jeffords introduced S. 1391 with Senators Boxer, Clinton, Corzine, Kennedy and Kerry to address the major problem of inadequate chemical regulation in this country. The United States' current regulatory approach to chemicals is in dire need of being modernized. As Congress begins to take up this issue, the European Union is starting to resolve a multi-year process to achieve the same goal and is developing what may become the state- of-the-art approach to chemicals regulation. While this issue is proceeding overseas, we cannot sit upon our hands here in the United States. It's clear that our system must be modernized, and I have no doubt that it will be modernized. Our goal is that Congress begin this process sooner rather than later. The Kid Safe Chemicals Act responds to the growing body of scientific literature which identifies chemical exposures as a factor in the rise of disorders and diseases such as birth defects, asthma, neurological and developmental disorders, infertility and certain types of cancer. Study after study reveals alarming evidence of our exposure to industrial chemicals and pollutants. Bio-monitoring studies report the presence of hundreds of synthetic chemicals in our bodies--even in the bodies of infants and fetuses. These chemicals are not household names: bisphenol A, brominated flame retardants, phthalates, and perfluoro compounds. Yet we are exposed every day--on the job, through our food and water, and in our homes. Computers, cosmetics, even children's toys can contribute to our collective ``body burden'' of chemical contamination. Tens of thousands of chemicals have never been properly assessed for their potential health and environmental risks. The problem can be traced to the 1976 federal law that was meant to empower the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to take action on such threats. The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) has been in place for 29 years, but has failed to protect Americans from dangerous chemicals. A July 2005 report by the Governmment Accountability Office documented the abysmal results of this federal policy. Of the 62,000 chemicals on the market when the law took effect, the EPA has used its authority under the Toxic Substances Control Act to evaluate less than two hundred, and invoked its power to regulate just five groups of chemicals. This system is badly broken. The Kid Safe Chemicals Act will reform our failed approach to chemical regulation and put us on track to reassert U.S. leadership. This legislation will protect kids by recognizing their special vulnerabilities and requiring manufacturers to provide health and safety information prior to distributing a chemical in consumer products. This will end the false presumption that we have relied upon for too long--that a substance is safe until proven dangerous. This legislation is endorsed by the American Public Health Association, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and over a dozen pediatricians, other physicians and researchers from the National Centers for Children's Environmental Health. This legislation is a strong starting point in a debate our country needs to have. I am proud to introduce Senator Lautenberg's legislation in the House and look forward to working with colleagues in both chambers to act upon it as soon as possible.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate the American Cancer Fund for Children and Kids Cancer Connection, which are located in the 30th Congressional District, which I represent. Los Angeles Mayor, Antonio Villaraigosa, proclaimed the week of October 2, 2005 ``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 affected by cancer. More than eleven 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 as well as 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/or radiation. The American Cancer Fund for Children also sponsors Courageous Kid award ceremonies and hospital celebrations in recognition of a child's bravery and determination to fight the battle against childhood 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 battling cancer and their families. I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking and recognizing Steven Firestein for his tremendous efforts.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, one of the most important jobs for Congress is not just to pass laws but to see how the laws are working. We need to do oversight and to have investigations. The Constitution envisioned we would do this when they had us as a separate branch, and this is a way to provide the checks and balances that our Government was supposed to have in order to avoid the concentration of power in any one branch of Government. We have an executive branch that wants to act as secretly as possible. They do not want openness. They do not want transparency. They do not even want to hear alternative points of view. I believe that the President of the United States surrounds himself with people who tell him exactly what he wants to hear, and the Republicans who run the Congress are abetting that. They are helping him avoid getting a full discussion of the issues when Congress does not pursue oversight and investigations. Now there are many things that this Congress has failed to do. They have failed to look at the manipulation of intelligence by the President and others working for him in the prelude to the war. We have not had any hearings on that. They have failed to look at the issues of how we are spending the taxpayers' money on some of these contracts in Iraq, for Katrina and others. They really are not doing the diligent job that needs to be done. The Congress of the United States has even refused to look at and find out why we were not given information from the executive branch about the costs of the Medicaid prescription drug bill. A civil service actuary in the administration was prohibited from giving Congress that information. You would think that Democrats and Republicans would be outraged. Yet the Republicans who run the Congress refuse to hold hearings on this. Oversight is very important, and it stands today in stark contrast to the way they are behaving with the way the Republicans handled oversight when President Clinton was in power. There was not an accusation too small for them to ignore. They ran and called hearings. They issued subpoenas. They brought people into a private room to take depositions. The Congress of the United States held more days, I believe it was over a week of public hearings, on whether President Clinton misused his Christmas card list for political purpose. Yet we cannot get them to hold a hearing on the manipulation of intelligence to get us into a war. I think that when a Congress does not do its oversight, in effect what they are doing is covering things up. They are not letting the American people know what its government is doing. This is not the government of the Republican Party. This is not the government of President Clinton. It is a government that belongs to the people of the United States, and our democracy cannot work if there is no accountability and transparency. We have never heard of anyone in this administration fired for doing a poor job. In fact, if they do a poor enough job, they get elevated. They even get a Medal of Freedom award. No one was fired, no one was held accountable for the failure to have accurate intelligence before we went into the war. No one has been fired for anything that is been done improperly by this administration. It is as if it did not happen. I think the Republicans believe if you do not have oversight, no one knows about the problem; therefore, the problem never existed. Well, I think it is wrong. We have a responsibility and it is time that we speak out loudly and clearly to insist that the Congress of the United States live up to that responsibility. Mr. Speaker, I support the motion of the gentleman.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support for H. Res. 523 and join my colleagues in condemning Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's threats against Israel. This week, during an anti-Zionist conference in Tehran, the Iranian President called for Israel to be ``wiped off the map'' and led group chants of ``death to Israel.'' Standing beside Sheikh Nasrallah, leader of the Iranian-backed Hezbollah terrorist organization, he called for violence against Israel and all states that recognize her existence. Leaders around the world responded with forceful condemnation. At the U.N., Secretary General Annan acted swiftly to reject Iran's unprovoked hostility. Now, it is time for the U.N. to stand up as an institution and rebuke Iran for its actions. It is time for the U.N., which has a long history of unfair treatment of Israel, to speak out loudly and clearly in support of its existence. Iran's threats against Israel violate the fundamental U.N. Charter principle of sovereign equality for all member states. The danger of its rhetoric is only underscored by its open support for terrorist groups that attack Israel, and its determination to develop nuclear weapons and obtain long-range missiles capable of striking Israel. This alarming incident demonstrates that the international community must redouble its efforts to shut down Iran's nuclear program before the regime has the capability to try and carry out its evil designs.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank my colleague from Arkansas for his very kind words and join him in saluting all of the Members of the House and the Senate and our staffs who have worked on this legislation. I do not want to dwell on why the FDA decided to regulate some lenses as cosmetics rather than medical devices. Congressman Deal referred to it as a loophole. I consider it a lapse in enforcement. Regardless, this bill is neutral on what went wrong. It just fixes the problem, and that is what we need to do. I would urge all of our colleagues to join us in supporting the legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join my colleagues, particularly the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman), in supporting this important bill to apply the highest safety standards and consumer protections to all contact lenses. This legislation became necessary on April 4, 2003. On this date, the Food and Drug Administration decided to classify certain colored contact lenses as cosmetics, not medical devices. This classification made no sense. Cosmetics are not required to be made according to strict manufacturing standards; cosmetics are not reviewed for safety prior to marketing; and cosmetics are not prescribed by a doctor. The loose regulatory approach to cosmetics may work for lipstick; but it is dangerous for contact lenses, which are placed directly on the eyes. If contact lenses are not made properly, they can cause severe infections. If lenses do not fit properly, they can cause disfiguring ulcers, and if lenses are worn by teenagers or others without the ongoing supervision of an eye care professional, severe injuries can result. Since April 4, 2003, scores of teenagers and young adults have been injured by cosmetic contact lenses. Some have permanently lost vision. Others have required corneal transplants. In one survey in Louisiana, 85 percent of optometrists and 45 percent of ophthalmologists reported diagnosing eye injuries from contact lenses sold without a prescription. Since April 4, 2003, I have worked with the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman), contact lens manufacturers, the American Academy of Ophthalmology, the American Optometric Association, and consumer advocates to ensure that all contact lenses are regulated according to the strict standards and consumer protections applied to medical devices. In the 108th Congress, our legislation passed the House, but not the Senate. In late July of this year, the legislative approach that we designed passed the Senate. It is this legislation that is again before the House. By passing this bill, we can ensure the FDA protects consumers from unsafe contact lenses, we can prevent serious eye injuries, even blindness, and we can send a timely message to teenagers and their parents about the dangers of unsupervised use of contact lenses at Halloween. I would like to express my appreciation to Senators DeWine and Kennedy for guiding this legislation through the Senate, I would like to thank those at FDA who supported our legislative solution, and I recognize the efforts of experts such as Thomas Steinemann in Cleveland, who worked hard to raise awareness about the availability and dangers of unsafe lenses. I especially want to thank and congratulate our colleague, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman), for his persistence and hard work in the House of Representatives. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan consensus legislation today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I know that the argument on the other side is that we want people to take personal responsibility, but is it fair to say that there is personal responsibility when a company hides thousands of serious adverse effects, as was the case with a company that had a product with ephedra in it; or when a company does not warn about its risks; when companies know about dangers and do not market their product responsibly? We are not talking about in this situation a food product that may be heavy in fat or may have cholesterol or whatever. People should expect in eating foods generally recognized as safe that if they abuse their eating habits they are responsible for it. But with a dietary supplement, if the manufacturer withholds this information about the risks, and there is no warning whatsoever when the manufacturer knows there should be, then it seems to me we are giving up the responsibility of the manufacturer to warn and taking people who are harmed not because they did not act responsibly and then saying to them they are out of luck. I would think this is not a good argument that we have heard on the other side, and I would hope Members would make this exception. A food supplement, a dietary supplement in the form of a pill or some other process is like a drug, and I do not think we would want people to be subjected to no lawsuit that is legitimate if the drug has never been approved and never warned about by the manufacturer. So I ask support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, those who support this bill argue that food manufacturers should be sheltered from lawsuits claiming that their products cause someone to become obese. I can understand their reasoning, because there is a sense of personal responsibility involved. But what my amendment would do is to limit that language so it is not so broad as to include what are called ``dietary supplements,'' because some of these products are not like food. They are not reviewed by the FDA. They are not even subject to FDA intervention, unless they can show real harm being done, and we have had examples of ephedra and andro that have been withdrawn from the market because they caused serious injury, or DHEA, which is a steroid precursor. The bill authors would say that they want to protect from lawsuits when people say they have gained weight or there is obesity or health conditions associated with a person's weight gain or obesity. Imagine you are overweight and suffer from high blood pressure because you are overweight, and you decide to try losing weight by taking a dietary supplement product. But what you do not know is that the product you are taking contains a potentially dangerous stimulant; and instead of helping you lose weight, the product causes your blood pressure to go even higher and makes you really sick. If this bill passed, you could not sue the dietary supplement company even if the product did not have a warning label; even if the companies received thousands of adverse event reports that they have kept hidden; even if a professional medical society and experts have concluded that the product is dangerous; and even if the company has never tested the product to see if it is safe. Removing the threat of liability for dangerous dietary supplements would be a grave mistake. Despite evidence that supplements containing ephedra are dangerous and have caused heart attacks or strokes or death, it took the FDA years to act to take higher-dose ephedra supplements off the market. In the meantime, some dietary supplement companies stopped making ephedra products because of the mounting litigation. Without having to take responsibility for their products, manufacturers could be free to sell dangerous substances to the public. The threat of a lawsuit could have a real impact here, and it is not one simply of personal responsibility. We are seeing now a new generation of weight-loss products marketed as dietary supplements that have stimulant ingredients that may be similar to ephedra. According to a recent study, these new products may raise blood pressure and heart rate, making them potentially dangerous particularly to those people who already have heart disease. However, it is perfectly legal for a dietary supplement manufacturer to sell these products without testing to see if they are safe and without warning consumers of potential adverse effects. This bill, as it is drafted, is a license for reckless behavior by dietary supplement manufacturers. I do not know if that is what the authors intended; I tend to think they probably did not look at that issue. It allows them to sell dangerous products to Americans without ever having to take responsibility in a court of law, and our amendment would close the dietary supplement loophole. I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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