Henry Waxman

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman raises an interesting point that it would be a violation of law. A lot of times these are not violations of law because there are no laws that pertain.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. After the votes have been cast, is it not appropriate to announce the votes?

Mr. WAXMAN. I do have an inquiry.

Mr. WAXMAN. When there is a markup without Members having more than a day to review it; when the bill is rewritten and put on the House floor without Members having had a chance to review it; when the vote is held open a long period of time after the time has expired, does that not make the House a banana republic?

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership has done it. They have turned the House of Representatives into a banana republic. We have a bill on the floor today that had no hearings. It had no subcommittee markup. It was rushed through the committee without any attempt to find a compromise. A few hours ago, in the dark of night, the bill was rewritten. There is not one Member who really understands everything that is in this bill or understands what this bill will really do. But there are dozens of cronies and special interest lobbyists smiling this morning because they know the fix is in. The Republican leadership is so scared of open debate and the democratic process that they will not allow the bill's provisions to be debated or amended. They only will permit one amendment to one of the most anti-environmental, backward, and intellectually dishonest bills that has ever come before the House. And that may not be the worst of it, because the Republican leadership is trying to do all of this in the name of Katrina. America watched with horror as this hurricane struck. The damage was immense, and so was our responsibility in Congress to do all we can to help those who have been displaced rebuild their lives. But that is what makes this legislation so shameful. At a time of desperate need and profound responsibility, the response of Washington Republicans is crass opportunism. The bill will not help a single victim of Katrina. It will do nothing to help lower gas prices. Instead, Washington Republicans are using the devastation caused by the hurricanes to stampede Congress into undermining our environmental laws. Exploitation is an ugly word, but that is what this is. I would urge Members to vote against the rule and, more importantly, vote against this bill. It is a shameful piece of legislation. It is the legislative equivalent of price gouging, and the American people deserve better, and we can do better.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3893 and in strong support of the Stupak substitute. The Gulf Coast of the United States was devastated by a catastrophic hurricane. Hundreds of thousands of Americans lost their homes and their possessions. Gasoline prices jumped 46 cents per gallon overnight. Price gouging was rampant. The big oil companies charged more, simply because they could. The oil companies took shameless advantage of the disaster, and now Washington Republicans are trying to do the very same thing. The Republican leadership is trying to use this tragedy and Missouri to undermine our environmental laws and pass more special interest giveaways to the oil industry. It wants to exploit Hurricane Katrina for a special interest bonanza. This is the legislative equivalent of price gouging, and it is unconscionable. The bill before us is supposed to be a response to Hurricane Katrina. It is supposed to respond to the damage done to our Nation's energy infrastructure and address the Nation's runaway energy prices, but what it does is give the oil companies even more taxpayer subsidies and exemptions from environmental laws, and the bill is not even limited to the oil industry. If this bill becomes law, the entire eastern half of the United States can suffer more pollution for years to come. The ideas in this bill are not new. They are the same egregious environmental assaults that Republicans in Congress have tried unsuccessfully to pass for years. All that is new is the rationale. There is no excuse for this legislation to allow children with asthma to have to suffer more medical problems on the eastern coast of the United States in order to address a tragedy in the gulf coast of the United States. Ten years ago, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) introduced legislation to repeal the Clean Air Act piece by piece. Today, Washington Republicans are using hurricanes as a cover to enact his radical agenda. These were very bad ideas when they were first proposed. To pass them now in the guise of helping hurricane victims would be shameful.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Simon Wiesenthal, a tireless champion of justice for the victims of the Holocaust and for all humanity. As a survivor of the Holocaust, Simon Wiesenthal called his life a miracle. One often wondered whether it was by strength, providence or simple luck that he survived 12 gruesome concentration camps, but when he emerged from Mauthausen, liberated by American troops, he pledged to dedicate his survival to the fight for justice for Nazi victims. He began with painstaking detective work in the War Crimes Section of the U.S. Army, gathering documentation to be used in the prosecution of the Nuremberg trials. His meticulous archival research became a key building block for the Yad Vashem archive in Jerusalem. And when the Iron Curtain fell and the allied powers tired of tracking Nazi war criminals, Simon Wiesenthal pressed on. He helped locate Adolf Eichmann, the architect of the Final Solution, who was put on trial and hanged in Israel. His efforts also led to the capture of Nazi war criminals living here in the United States. His success inspired the creation of the Office of Special Investigations at the Justice Department to seek their denaturalization and deportation. For Mr. Wiesenthal, the pursuit of war criminals and hate groups was an integral part of Holocaust remembrance. The genocide of millions could not be mourned properly while the murderers walked free. The cry of ``never again'' could not be fulfilled if the world did not act against neo-Nazis and other extremists who continue to foment hatred and violence. I am especially proud that my district in Los Angeles is home to the Simon Wiesenthal Center, a leading voice in Holocaust education and the fight against anti-Semitism, racism, and extremism. With offices around the world, the Wiesenthal Center has actively worked with UNESCO and the OSCE individual nations and regional institutions to fight increasing anti-Semitism in Europe and expose hate groups on the Internet. The center's Museum of Tolerance opened in 1993 and has welcomed over 4 million visitors to its permanent collection on the Holocaust and contemporary exhibits on Rwanda, Sudan, and the former Yugoslavia. These programs are all part of Simon Wiesenthal's legacy as a hero to the victims of the Holocaust, the survivors, and future generations. As we mourn his passing, let us reaffirm our commitment to honor his courage and conviction and continue his life's work. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Simon Wiesenthal, a tireless champion of justice for the victims of the Holocaust and for all humanity. As a survivor of the Holocaust, Simon Wiesenthal called his life a miracle. He often wondered whether it was by strength, Providence, or simple luck that he survived 12 gruesome concentration camps. But when he emerged from Mauthausen, liberated by American troops, he pledged to dedicate his survival to the fight for justice for Nazi victims. He began with painstaking detective work in the War Crimes Section of the United States Army, gathering documentation to be used in the prosecution of the Nuremberg trials. His meticulous archival research became a key building block for the Yad Vashem archive in Jerusalem. And when the Iron Curtain fell and the allied powers tired of tracking Nazi war criminals, Simon Wiesenthal pressed on. He helped locate Adolf Eichman, the architect of the ``Final Solution,'' who was put on trial and hanged in Israel. He tracked down the Gestapo officer who arrested and deported Anne Frank to prove wrong the early Holocaust deniers who claimed her story was untrue. His efforts also led to the capture of Nazi war criminals living here in the United States. His success inspired the creation of the Office of Special Investigations at the Justice Department to seek their denaturalization and deportation. To date, OSI has won 101 cases. Its most recent victory came in August when a U.S. District Court in Chicago revoked the citizenship of a member of a Nazi-sponsored Ukrainian unit that decimated the Jewish community of Lvov. For Mr. Wiesenthal, the pursuit of war criminals and hate groups was an integral part of Holocaust remembrance. The genocide of millions could not be mourned properly while the murderers walked free. The cry of `Never Again' could not be fulfilled if the world did not act against neo-Nazis and other extremists continuing to foment hatred and violence. I am especially proud that my district in Los Angeles is home to the Simon Wiesenthal Center--a leading voice in Holocaust education and the fight against anti-Semitism, racism and extremism. With offices around the world, the Wiesenthal Center has actively worked with UNESCO, the OSCE, individual nations and regional institutions to fight increasing anti-Semitism in Europe and expose hate groups on the Internet. The Center's Museum of Tolerance, opened in 1993, has welcomed over 4 million visitors to its permanent collection on the Holocaust and contemporary exhibits on Rwanda, Sudan, and the former Yugoslavia. Thousands of students, teachers, and law enforcement officers have participated in the Museum's ``Tools for Tolerance'' program to combat hate crimes, prejudice, and bias in our own communities. These programs are all part of Simon Wiesenthal's legacy as a hero to the victims of the Holocaust, the survivors, and future generations. As we mourn his passing, let us reaffirm our commitment to honor his courage and conviction and continue his life's work.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of H.R. 3667, which names a post office in Brentwood, California after Karl Malden. This bill, jointly sponsored by me and my colleague, Representative McHugh was unanimously reported by the Government Reform Committee on September 15, 2005. Mr. Malden, a 93-year-old World War II veteran and Oscar-winning actor, has lived in Brentwood, California since 1960. He has served for nearly 15 years as a member of the United States Postal Service Citizens' Stamp Advisory Committee, which selects the subjects and design of postal issues. Mr. Malden's colleagues on the Advisory Committee believe that naming a post office in his honor would be a fitting tribute to his many years of service to the mission of the United States Postal Service. I agree, and I am very pleased that this bill will make that happen. I wish to thank my colleague, Representative McHugh, Chairman Davis, and the members of the Citizen's Stamp Advisory Committee for their work to honor Mr. Malden. I want to extend a special thank you to Michael Layman, professional staff member to Chairman Davis, and Robert Taub, chief of staff to Representative McHugh for their hard work in getting this bill through committee to the House floor.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to address the House on this subject that is before us today. I have served in the Congress for 30 years, the first 19 in the majority, the last 11 in the minority, so I have seen life from both sides. And let me tell you, today is one of the low moments. We have just experienced a national tragedy that has caused immeasurable pain to countless Americans, and yet here in the House of Representatives, nothing seems to have changed. The House is not rising above raw partisanship even in a time of national tragedy. Republicans are saying, well, we should just trust them because they have created something they are calling bipartisan. Well, the right way to create something that is bipartisan is for the two parties to talk. Instead, the Republicans met among themselves without talking to the Democrats and have proposed this select committee on a take-it-or- leave-it basis. The majority cannot define bipartisanship for the minority. The majority has to make the real effort and be willing to do some work, maybe hard work with the minority to achieve bipartisanship. Well, why are we suspicious? They did not talk to us. The committees in the House and the Senate that have oversight jurisdiction were starting to hold hearings and suddenly the Republican leadership said, well, we are going to have a House-Senate committee. And suddenly it is not a House-Senate committee; it is a select committee. Well, look at the record how Republicans have done oversight. Have we really looked at how the White House used the intelligence, as faulty as it was, that was the basis for going to war in Iraq? No, we have not had hearings on that. We have not looked at that. Has the House looked at the question of the outing of a CIA agent by people in the White House in order to punish her husband who was critical of the Iraq war? No, no hearings on that. The actuary working for this administration withheld from Congress on the costs of the Medicare prescription drug bill. Should we not try to find out what happened? Both Republicans and Democrats were denied the facts before we voted on the bill. No, nothing on that. We had more hearings when the Republicans were in charge and there was a Democratic administration on whether President Clinton misused his Christmas card list for political purposes. That meant 7 or 8 days of hearings. But we cannot get hearings on these important subjects. And now we are told there is a bipartisan committee, a select committee, that is going to look into this matter. Well, if you really wanted bipartisanship, I say to my Republican friends who run the House, you need to at least talk to the Democrats and make an effort. But when you do not make an effort and you have a record of abusing the power that you have in running this institution and ignoring the oversight responsibilities on really important matters in order to protect a Republican administration from possible embarrassment, we have no confidence whatsoever that we are going to get to the facts of what went wrong in dealing with Hurricane Katrina. We need to rise above this raw partisanship and join together, if not on an independent commission which I think makes the most sense, at least on a committee that is equally divided, with the powers equally divided, where the intent is to work together. But we looked at what is being proposed, and the only conclusion that many of us can reach is that this is going to be a committee to pretend to do an investigation but not find out the truth.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, to Americans who are paying record prices for gasoline, do not look for any relief in this legislation. You would think when you pay record high prices for gasoline because of supply and demand that those who are receiving such high prices ought to have enough money to reinvest it to develop more energy. Well, what are we doing here? We are asking the taxpayers to give more money to the oil, gas, coal, and nuclear industries in order to produce more energy domestically. For those who think that maybe at a time when we are dealing with a supply and demand problem that we also ought to reduce the demand, there is almost nothing in this legislation. In fact, the other body, that means the Senate, had a provision that would have called on the President to come up with some ideas to reduce the demand for energy and the waste of energy and waste of oil particularly, just the President to come up with some ideas. Well, that was forced out of the bill. We have nothing to make automobiles more fuel efficient, nothing to reduce the demand. For those who think perhaps we ought to look for alternative renewable fuels, well, the Senate had a provision on that issue. It was not a very strong one. That was struck from the bill. The Republican Party has always had a tension between those who believe in fiscal responsibility and reducing government spending and those who want to reward their friends. This bill reflects the Republican Party, and many Democrats', support for their goal to reward their friends in big business. Then the worst part of this bill, at a time when we are fighting in the Middle East, when we are asking our young men and women to risk their lives in part to protect our security from those who have been financed by oil imports into the United States and around the world, we are going to become even more dependent on importing more foreign oil. This legislation is more than just a lost opportunity; it is a bill that I do not think is worthy of our support. Now, the bill is not as bad as it could have been, but it is not nearly as good as it should be. The American people deserve much better. They deserve a visionary, bold energy policy that truly makes our country energy independent. And the bill is also a strike at environmental protection. There was nothing more pathetic than the colloquy a few minutes ago with some of my colleagues from Florida who were worried about the beginning of drilling off the shore of Florida as we in California have worried about that as well. And they asked the chairman of the full committee for assurances that he will continue to work with them if the State does not want to allow the offshore oil drilling off the coast of Florida as we do not want it done in California. And they were assured that, of course, they would continue to be worked with. Well, those same gentleman offered amendments, and I supported them, to say that we should not start down that road to drilling off the coast. And then they offered an amendment, which I supported, to say, if the State does not want drilling off the Continental Shelf, off that coast, to let the State opt out. That was defeated. Now what we have in that colloquy is we will have people continue to work with us. Well, we have taken the step towards letting the oil companies drill off the coast of our Nation. We have taken the step to open up more national lands that we wanted to protect to be developed by the oil companies. In another bill we will open up Alaska lands to further drilling. We cannot drill ourselves out of our energy problems. We are not going to drill ourselves out of the global climate problems. We have got to get a better energy bill than the one before us. I urge Members to vote against it.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, there are a number of very important reasons to oppose this bill, but I want to focus on one of the most egregious parts of the legislation that has nothing to do with medical malpractice. Under this legislation, if a drug or medical device manufacturer sells a dangerous product that causes harm to a consumer, so long as that product received FDA approval prior to being marketed, a court would be prohibited from awarding punitive damages against that manufacturer. This marks a dramatic change in current law by transforming FDA product approval into a shield against liability. Time and again we have seen that the FDA approval process cannot or does not guarantee the safety of drugs and other medical products. Every day our concerns increase about the adequacy of the FDA's postmarket safety programs. And we have seen numerous instances in which despite receiving FDA approval, drugs and medical devices, have been pulled from the market because of the emergence of severe dangers associated with their use. Mr. Speaker, we have not given the FDA the tools or the ability to approve a drug so that all the things that would happen after that approval will not occur, such as the failure of the company that manufactures it to make sure they follow their own safety standards; or that new risks that are not known at the time of the approval will never arise. We have to rely on the civil justice system as an additional layer of protection for American citizens. In court, consumers harmed by dangerous medical products are given the opportunity to hold the pharmaceutical companies accountable for their wrongdoing. Confronted with the looming threat of liability, pharmaceutical and medical device companies have every incentive to ensure that their products are safe before they are marketed, and that they continue to be safe once on the market. We have seen mounting evidence that drug and device companies can withhold key data from physicians, fail to conduct needed safety studies, and carry out misleading advertisement campaigns even when they know of the risks of their products. Yet instead of safeguarding an individual's right to hold a drug and device company accountable for this kind of conduct, this legislation offers sweeping protection for those companies. A company might mislead doctors about the safety of its drug and continue to aggressively promote the use of a dangerous drug in spite of studies raising questions as to its safety. Under this legislation, such company would have a shield from liability for punitive damages for this behavior. This is an issue that should be decided on the evidence and in court. If we fail to preserve the right of Americans to hold manufacturers of dangerous medical products accountable, we will fail to uphold our responsibility to American consumers to protect against unsafe products and medical devices. Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to the legislation.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, It is with great disappointment that I rise in opposition to CAFTA. I support free trade. Trade agreements are an important tool to strengthen ties with strategic partners, expand opportunities for American industry, and improve the standard of living. Unfortunately, I believe that this agreement will do more harm than good. Among my chief concerns, the agreement perpetuates weak and unenforced labor and environmental standards. The failure to raise these standards will hurt Central Americans and create unfair competition for American workers. CAFTA would also allow foreign companies to bypass the U.S. court system and challenge Federal, State and local laws and regulations through a veiled and unaccountable trade tribunal. But, today I would like to focus my remarks on a major issue that unfortunately has gotten relatively little attention in this debate, which is that CAFTA will seriously impede access to essential medicine in poor developing countries. In June, the minority staff on the Government Reform Committee released a report entitled ``Trade Agreements and Access to Medications Under the Bush Administration.'' The complete report is available at www.democrats.reform.house.gov and I would ask unanimous consent that the Executive Summary be printed in the Congressional Record. The alarming conclusion the report reached is that under CAFTA, patients in poor countries will often have to wait longer than those in the United States to gain access to generic drugs. Specifically, CAFTA would block governments from approving the sale of generic drugs for at least five years after a new drug is introduced, even if the drug's patent has already expired. The agreement would also inhibit generic competition with patent extensions and other measures that will make it harder for drug regulators to approve generic drugs. The impact will be devastating in the developing world where large poor and uninsured populations cannot afford brand name drugs. For many patients suffering from diseases like AIDS, tuberculosis, heart disease and cancer, waiting five years to afford new cures will mean the difference between life and death. In reality, the pharmaceutical companies actually stand to gain little from these protections in a region of the world that barely represents one half of one percent of the global drug market. But the companies view this trade agreement as a cookie cutter model for USTR to negotiate with all countries regardless of the consequences. The Bush Administration has boldly advanced the pharmaceutical agenda, claiming that the provisions are merely an extension of a U.S. law known as Hatch-Waxman. As an author of that legislation, I could not disagree more. Hatch-Waxman was a carefully crafted measure that reflects both the need to promote innovation and the need to facilitate generic competition. In contrast, CAFTA does not establish a proper balance between the interests of the drug companies and consumers, between intellectual property rights and the human rights of patients. It is reckless and dangerous to force our partners in the developing world to trade away their timely access to inexpensive, lifesaving medications. It is irresponsible for the United States to undermine its commitment to the 2001 Doha Declaration, which expressly called for trade rules to respect public health needs. It is wrong for CAFTA to advance the financial interests of large multinational drug companies at the expense of the developing world's ability to address public health problems. If we defeat CAFTA today, we can put pressure on the Bush Administration to change course. Then we can vote on an agreement that is both ethically and economically sound. Executive Summary In 2001, 142 countries, including the United States, adopted ``the Doha Declaration,'' an international agreement that trade obligations should be interpreted and implemented in ways that protect public health and access to essential medications. In August 2002, the U.S. Congress passed the Trade Promotion Authority Act, which directs adherence to the Doha Declaration in U.S. trade negotiations. Since the adoption of the Doha Declaration and the passage of the Trade Promotion Authority Act, the Bush Administration has signed and Congress has ratified bilateral free trade agreements with three developing countries: Chile, Singapore, and Morocco. The Administration has signed one regional free trade agreement, commonly referred to as CAFTA, with five Central American nations and the Dominican Republic, and a bilateral agreement with Bahrain. Six more free trade agreements with 13 developing countries have been initiated, including a proposed agreement with four Andean nations. Negotiations have also continued on the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA). At the request of Rep. Henry A. Waxman, this report examines whether the Administration is complying with the Doha Declaration in its pursuit of these trade agreements. The report finds that contrary to the Doha Declaration, U.S. trade negotiators have repeatedly used the trade agreements to restrict the ability of developing nations to acquire medicines at affordable prices. In effect, the President's trade representatives have elevated the protection of pharmaceutical patents above the pressing health needs of developing countries. Specifically, the report finds that the agreements: Delay approval of generic drugs. CAFTA and the other four signed trade agreements, as well as the Andean proposal and FTAA draft, contain provisions that block the approval of inexpensive generic drugs until the more expensive brand-name drug has received at least five years of market exclusivity in the developing nation. Under the agreements, the developing nations will often have to wait longer than the United States to gain access to low-cost versions of essential medications. Require patent extensions. CAFTA and the other four signed trade agreements, as well as the Andean proposal, require the developing nations to grant patent extensions to the manufacturers of brand-name drugs to account for delays in the regulatory approval process in the developing nation. These provisions can extend the term of patents in the developing nations beyond their duration in the United States. Link drug approval to patent status. CAFTA and the other four signed trade agreements, as well as the Andean proposal and the FTAA draft, require drug regulatory authorities in the developing nations to adjudicate patents despite their lack of expertise in the area of patent enforcement, placing an additional constraint on the approval and availability of low-cost generics. Restrict compulsory licensing. The Singapore agreement, the Andean proposal, and the FTAA draft limit the circumstances under which developing nations can issue compulsory licenses authorizing generic manufacturers to produce low-cost versions of patented drugs. Prohibit parallel importation. The trade agreements with Morocco and Singapore, as well as the Andean proposal and the FTAA draft, prevent the developing nations from importing patented drugs from abroad at the lowest available price. Expand patent protections. The Andean proposal has a provision that would require the Andean nations to issue patents for diagnostic, therapeutic, and surgical methods that are currently exempted from patentability. Taken together, these trade provisions will significantly impede the ability of developing countries to obtain access to inexpensive, lifesaving medications. Contrary to the principles of the Doha Declaration, these provisions in the trade agreements advance the financial interests of large multinational drug companies at the expense of the developing world's ability to address public health problems.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend and colleague for yielding to me and also, more importantly, for the enormous contribution he has made to this legislation along with the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis). The four of us have been working very, very closely and produced legislation that was unanimously voted out of our committee. The legislation is to modernize the structure of the Postal Service. It is a $69 billion entity with 700,000 employees. It supports industries that produce goods and services worth $900 billion annually. For generations Americans have relied on the system for universal service for letters and packages. Reaching unanimity was not easy. A primary goal of postal reform was to give the Postal Service the flexibility it needs to survive in a changing and increasingly competitive environment. At the same time, we took into account the varied and complex needs of the mailing community and the American people. The result is a strong bill with the primary goal of allowing the Postal Service to continue to fulfill its universal service mission at a reasonable cost. The legislation makes a number of key changes, but all of the changes in this bill are calibrated to balance out conflicting forces so that we could bring everybody on board. That is why this bill, I would urge my colleagues to understand, is one that we need to support in its entirety and to resist changes, however attractive they may be. The bill, in closing, will make sure that the Postal Service can go into this 21st century as a viable institution; where it competes, to make sure that it will not compete unfairly; and where it is doing its job as a unique establishment, it will be handled in a way so that it will be run efficiently and effectively for the public good. I ask support for the legislation before us.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I join my chairman in opposing this amendment. It sounds like the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) has some vision of postal reform. Well, I just think that is great, except we cannot pass it. The alternative to this, as the chairman has pointed out, is going to be the existing system and undesirable increases on rates. So what is the amendment before us? It is not a different version of reform of the Postal Service. It would micro-manage the Postal Service's use of money that is now in an escrow and will tell them they have to use most of that money to prefund health benefits. Well, we say they must use some of that money for that, but if they shift the money for that purpose, then to run the Postal Service they are going to have to ask for an increase in rates. That is why in amendment would certainly be opposed by all the people who use the Postal Service, the mailers, the enterprises, the businesses in this country that rely on the Postal Service for their success. Now, the amendment does something else, and I just have to underscore it. As the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform mentioned, it would require the Postal Service to pay for the pensions for those who served in the military before they went to work for the Postal Service. If you were in the military and went to work for any other agency of government, that agency would not be required to pay for your military pension. They might be required to pay for the pension accrued from service in that agency. Why should the Postal Service have to pay for the military pensions? It does not make sense. And the consequence of it would be that the Postal Service would have to ask for an increase in rates because they have this extra financial burden to pay for military pensions. That is why this amendment is one that I think it to be a poison pill for the legislation. You could imagine the groups that oppose this legislation like the National Association of Manufacturers and NFIB and others opposing this because they do not want higher rates. I urge opposition to the amendment.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I understand this amendment is to do something on a pilot project basis with the idea that we are going to promote innovation in the delivery of the mail. Well, I support that goal. H.R. 22 has many provisions to promote flexibility and innovation; but this amendment, maybe it was not intended this way, but it is drafted in a way that is an open invitation to abuse. It allows a local postmaster to contract out the delivery of the mail to private companies; and in the course of that amendment, it provides that any provision of Federal law that might otherwise apply to these contracts and the delivery of mail can be waived. Well, that is incredibly far-reaching. It would mean a local postal official could set up his own company. He can ask his brother-in-law to set up another company and then contract with that company to do the job of delivering the mail. It is certainly a blatant conflict of interest. But even criminal laws could be waived under this amendment. There would be no prohibition against under-the-table kickbacks. The provision could allow the waiver of the privacy of first-class mail. This could lead to a lot of unforeseen problems. That is why the postmasters of this country, the National League of Postmasters, which represents the local postmasters, has said that the postmasters very strongly oppose the amendment: ``The Congressman's approach would be harmful to universal service.'' So it is not just that this amendment goes against the compromise that has brought this whole bill together, but I do not think it has been thought through, and I do not think we ought to adopt something that has so many possible ramifications to it that we would certainly regret.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Indiana described the President's Commission on Postal Reform. Many of the broad outlines of that Commission's recommendations are in the legislation before us today. The legislation before us today is supported by not Democrats, not just Republicans, but by labor unions and management, the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Federation of Independent Businesses, Small Business Legislative Council, and the postal unions. And I will not go through all of them, but all the newspapers, the publishers, the mailers, all the people that look to the Postal Service for their service. This amendment, when we get right to what the amendment is all about, is to take the one out of nine seats on the Board of Governors away from a union representative. The Postal Service has 700,000 career employees. They are the ones who make the system work. Are they not entitled to have one representative on this board? This idea of giving them representation is backed by labor, management, business. We have all worked cooperatively together on postal reform legislation. They have built trust and made compromises. That is why this legislation is so broadly supported. This amendment would undermine the consensus behind the legislation. It singles out one group and says they lose, they lose their seat on the Board. That may be good politics for people who want to say they are antiunions, but it is not good for this legislation or for the Postal Service. So I would urge my colleagues to oppose the Pence amendment and to support the bill, not to adopt this or any other amendment that would undermine the consensus behind the legislation. And then let us move forward. We will have to be talking to the other body. We will have to be talking to the President and people in his administration in order to get a law, but we have a consensus for a bill that we hope will become law.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the name of the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran) removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 3003.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to talk about the disgraceful revelation that Karl Rove and people in the White House may have been involved in outing a CIA agent. How serious is this matter? I refer people to the quote of President George H.W. Bush. He said: ``I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors.'' What did this President Bush say? He said he would fire anybody who might have been involved in doing such a thing. Now what we are hearing is that the evidence is mounting that Karl Rove and others in the White House may have been involved in using classified information as part of a conspiracy for political purposes, jeopardizing our national security. It is imperative that we know the facts. And how do we get to the facts? Not just wait for a special prosecutor, but Congress has the responsibility to hold hearings. Let us bring Rove here, put him under oath, and let him tell us what he has to say.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the achievements of an educational role model, Doug Stoll. On July 7, 2005, The Creative Coalition and The American Federation of Teachers will honor Mr. Stoll with a 2005 Spotlight Award for Teaching Excellence. Mr. Stoll is a fifth-grade teacher at Canyon Charter School in Santa Monica, California. Canyon Charter was founded in 1894 and is the oldest elementary school in Los Angeles. It is a public school educating over 300 students in kindergarten through fifth grade. When he accepts his award, Mr. Stoll will be accompanied by Lawrence O'Donnell, the father of one of his recent students, who is a political analyst, writer, and member of The Creative Coalition. I join Mr. O'Donnell in thanking Mr. Stoll for his commitment to the children at Canyon Charter School. I congratulate Mr. Stoll on receiving this award and commend him for his enthusiasm and dedication. I would also like to extend my appreciation to both The Creative Coalition and The American Federation of Teachers for their support of our public schools.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce legislation today to reaffirm that Federal employees are protected from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and to repudiate any assertion to the contrary. At a time when our Federal employees are working tirelessly on behalf of the Nation, we should be doing our utmost to ensure that all are protected against discrimination. Unfortunately, the Bush administration appears to have abandoned a long-standing, bipartisan interpretation of the law which protects Federal employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation. I hope that Congress will act quickly to pass this legislation. Until recently, the Bush administration followed a long-standing policy prohibiting job discrimination against gay Federal employees. However, Special Counsel Scott Bloch, head of the Office of Special Counsel, responsible for investigating workplace discrimination, testified that Federal workers are not protected against discrimination based on sexual orientation. This statement diverges from years of Federal policy that safeguards gay and lesbian employees. The legislation being introduced today, the Clarification of Federal Employment Protection Act, would make clear the protection afforded by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, by explicitly making discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation a prohibited personnel practice under the act. I commend my colleagues--Representatives Chris Shays, Danny Davis, Mark Foley, Barney Frank, Jim Kolbe, Steny Hoyer, Eliot Engel, Tammy Baldwin, Chris Van Hollen, and Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton--for their leadership on this issue and look forward to working with them to obtain rapid approval of this bill in the House.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Van Hollen amendment to H.R. 3058, the Transportation, Treasury and HUD Appropriations bill for FY 2006. Representative Van Hollen's amendment would prevent the Administration from using federal funds to conduct public-private competitions under the new A-76 process announced in May of 2003. The amendment stops the Administration from playing politics with the civil service system and it deserves your strong support. The independent think tank, the Brookings Institution, and others explain that the true size of the federal government includes the ``shadow workforce'' of private contractors. Brookings has found that the private contractor workforce of the federal government is now 16.7 million. That is almost 10 times the size of the federal civil service. The rush to privatize the civil service system is dangerous, because when the government turns to poorly supervised private contractors, the potential for waste, fraud, and abuse soars. This is not my assessment. GAO has issued countless reports on contractor abuses and inadequate contract management by federal agencies. The problem is so bad that contract management at DOD, the Energy Department, and NASA--the three agencies that most heavily rely on contractors--has been on GAO's list of ``high risk'' federal programs for years. And to make matters worse, agencies, particularly DOD, have cut the number of acquisition personnel in a misguided attempt to save money. That means that there are not enough people to conduct adequate contract oversight. The Van Hollen amendment prohibits public-private competitions from being conducted under revised rules that give an unfair advantage to private contractors. It's passage would provide Congress and the Administration the opportunity to address several critical matters, including: creating a reliable way to keep track of the costs of service contractors, guaranteeing federal employees the right to compete fairly for their jobs before they are privatized, and ensuring a level playing field by giving federal employees the same legal rights as contractors enjoy. The Washington Monthly has written that, ``even the federal payroll can become a source of patronage. . . . And while doing so may or may not save taxpayers much money, it will divert taxpayer money out of the public sector and into private sector firms, where the GOP has a chance to steer contracts towards politically connected firms.'' We must stop the destructive and misguided effort to send federal jobs to private contractors at any cost. Vote ``yes'' on the Van Hollen amendment and stop this Administration's war on federal employees.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Berman and I ask our colleagues to join us today in honoring Dr. Howard Elinson, who was born on the 11th of January, 1940 in New York City and who passed away on Friday June 17th, 2005 in Los Angeles at Midway Hospital. Howard earned his B.A. and his Ph.D. in Sociology at UCLA. He taught for 1 year at Yale and for 7 years at UCLA. He worked as Administrative Assistant and Consultant for 27 years for Congressman Henry Waxman. Six of those years were when Mr. Waxman was a State Assemblyman. Howard is survived by his beloved and devoted brother Mark who is an admired and respected high school teacher of Social Studies in the Los Angeles City School system. He also serves as an Adviser to the L.A. Unified School District, instructing Social Studies teachers on the best techniques for teaching Social Studies. Howard Elinson was and is unforgettable to any or all who knew or met him (no matter how casually or for how short a time). He changed the life of everyone in his personal orbit by his magnetic personality his unique insight into the human condition, his sharp wit his gigantic intellect his mastery of any human behavior subject, and his generosity and kindness. But, unknown to most Californians and ``Angelenos'' (and unmentioned in media accounts) Howard Elinson changed the face of California and Los Angeles politics. It was Howard Elinson who conceived and invented individually targeted computerized mail--the campaign technique that was instrumental in the 1968 primary election victory of Henry Waxman for State Assembly (by, still to this date, the largest margin against an incumbent--this one a 26 year incumbent--of his own party), and the 1972 primary and general election victory of Howard Berman for State Assembly (the general against, ironically, a 26 year Republican incumbent). It was Howard Elinson's ideas that were instrumental in electing Congressman Henry Waxman, Congressman Howard Berman, Congressman Mel Levine, Congressman Julian Dixon, State Senator Herschel Rosenthal, State Assemblyman Burt Margolin, State Assemblyman Terry Friedman, and countless others. And it was Howard Elinson who inspired the strategy and direct mail efforts that led to the election of Mayor Tom Bradley in 1973. But Howard Elinson's life was much more than about politics. As a devout and Orthodox Jew his faith came first. And imagine this dark suited, yarmulke wearing, fast-talking man writing the ``early 60's seminal study'' of voting behavior for his Ph.D. thesis. He conducted lengthy and open-ended interviews, drawing out in their homes 50 white working class voters in Bell, California--the then-place-of-entry of the vast immigration from Oklahoma, the mid-west and the South to Southern California. These Christian and working class people had perhaps never before met a Jew--and certainly not a readily recognizable Orthodox Jew. Yet they opened their hearts to this amazing man. They trusted him--no matter how ``New York'' he spoke, no matter how foreign he might have looked. That was the uniqueness, the special nature of Howard Elinson. Perhaps inspired by his faith, or by his innate decency, Howard Elinson affected the lives of everyone who knew him. Many dozens of interns, staff, and budding politicians that came through Henry Waxman's office sought Howard Elinson's advice and counsel--both personal and career. Hundreds of young people confused by the conflicts between a traditional religious life and modernity sought Howard Elinson's advice on how to cope--``who better to ask?'' Children flocked to him--no child was unworthy of his attention, his sense of playfulness, his devotion to the child's value as a human being. No one in need (whether for a religious cause or in personal need) was turned down for a contribution. Howard Elinson's generosity was open ended and well known. The untimely death of Howard Elinson was not just a loss to his family and friends, but to the people who have had in him a champion of a tolerant, liberal, and more humane America.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a courageous young man, Christian Aguirre, whom I am proud to represent in Congress. Christian is 12 years old and attends Christopher Columbus Middle School in Canoga Park, California. Christian was diagnosed with Hodgkin's disease 2 years ago and has bravely undergone a series of treatments, many of them painful, since that time. Through it all, Christian has maintained his sense of humor and has met his challenge with grace and a remarkable outlook. I know that his family, friends, doctors, nurses and teachers are delighted that Christian is doing well and has been able to return to school. The American Cancer Fund for Children recently awarded Christian with the ``Courageous Kid'' award. I want to congratulate him on receiving this award and ask my colleagues to join me in applauding Christian for his optimism and courageous resolve during his battle with Hodgkin's disease.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, Brazil's HIV/AIDS program has been recognized by the United Nations AIDS program as one of the best in the world in both treatment and prevention. Working alongside nonprofit organizations, the government has aggressively fought the disease by offering universal antiretroviral treatment. Many of the first-line antiretroviral drugs used in Brazil are locally produced by generic companies, allowing the country to afford to treat tens of thousands of patients. But other second-line antiretroiviral drugs like the lopinavir/ ritonavir combination, efavirenz, and tenofovir have been sold by their brand name producers at a high cost. These three drugs alone consume 70% of Brazil's AIDS budget. According to Brazilian Health Minister Humberto Costa, the Brazilian government pays more than $2,600 annually per patient to purchase doses of lopinavir/ritonavir. Some who oppose Brazil's action have claimed that it violates trade rules. In fact, the World Trade Organization's 1994 Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property specifically permits compulsory licensing. The 2001 Doha Declaration reaffirmed this option, stating, ``Each member has the right to grant compulsory licenses and the freedom to determine the grounds upon which such licenses are granted.'' As a signatory of the Doha Declaration, the United States should respect the rights of other nations to address important health problems.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to prohibit the Department of Health and Human Services from using political litmus tests in making appointments to scientific advisory committees. Advisory committees play a crucial role in the development of policy. That role is to offer policymakers the best available expertise on scientific matters. Science is not liberal or conservative. It is not Democratic or Republican. In order to develop the best policy, our government needs to hear the facts from the most qualified experts, regardless of their political affiliation. This common sense principle is widely accepted in the scientific community. It has been endorsed by the National Academy of Sciences, the American Academy for the Advancement of Science, and numerous other scientific organizations. This amendment simply adopts this principle into policy. It would prohibit funding for any committee where members are chosen on the basis of political affiliation, unless required by law. Unfortunately, the current Administration has a terrible track record on this issue. It has repeatedly applied political litmus tests in making appointments to advisory committees. A nationally recognized expert on substance abuse was asked if he had voted for President Bush. After he answered honestly, he was not appointed. An expert in marine ecology was asked if she supported the President's economic and foreign policy agenda. After she told the truth, she was immediately dropped from consideration. A Nobel Prize winner was nominated for an important NIH panel on international health. According to a senior NIH official, he was not picked because he had ``signed too many full page letters in the Times.'' The Administration's use of political litmus tests has generated outrage in the scientific community. The editor of the journal Science has stated, ``I don't think any administration has penetrated so deeply into the advisory committee structure as this one, and I think it matters. . . . If you start picking people by their ideology instead of their scientific credentials, you are inevitably reducing the quality of the advisory group.'' These actions are unacceptable. Expert advisory panels should be filled with scientific experts, not party loyalists. This is the only way our government will have the information it needs to make the best policies on behalf of the American people. Our country's premier scientific organizations have affirmed the core principle that scientific advice should be provided by the best scientists. I urge my colleagues to endorse this principle and support this amendment.