Henry Waxman

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In closing, I want to urge support for the amendment and also express to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), for whom I have the highest regard, that I would like to work with him, along with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), to find a middle ground and to resolve any concerns that he has. I was unaware of his concerns, but I certainly would want to take them into serious consideration. Mr. Chairman, I urge an ``aye'' vote for the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I join my colleague, the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform, in urging Members to adopt this change in the Department of Energy structure. The change would increase the total number of Senate- confirmed Assistant Secretaries in the Department from six to eight. We have had an opportunity to evaluate this proposal, and it makes good sense. I think the Department will become much more efficient, and it will give greater attention to very important energy issues. So I join in support and urge my colleagues to vote for the Davis- Waxman amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield----

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I will assume that it is a correct quote, but let me tell the gentleman that was not the only choice they could have made, and they knew evidently, from what we are learning, that MBTE was a problem. They could have used ethanol.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, yes, it is.

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

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time. This only calls on the President to come up with some ideas talking to the people that are heading up his agencies. If he thinks he needs legislative authority, he should ask for it. But at least it makes him focus on not wasting oil, and there is a lot of waste that goes on. And the President can simply appeal to people: tune up your motors, promote oil savings in the industrial sector, keep vehicles properly tuned, improve the tire inflations, improve air traffic management. Some of these small things can add up to savings, and the savings we call for are the savings based on projections of future oil. I ask for an ``aye'' vote.

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

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Before I discuss the merits of this amendment that I seek to offer, I want to extend my appreciation to the Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), for his courtesy to me in allowing me to offer this amendment. I hope that I can convince him and my colleagues to support this amendment. A balanced energy bill should not just be production of more energy, but it should be conservation, reduction of the demand side of the equation, and I feel that the legislation is lacking in that regard. What my amendment would seek to do is to reduce the amount of oil that is wasted every single year. Let me tell my colleagues what the amendment does not do. It does not mandate anything. It does not mandate an increase in the CAFE standards for automobiles, although I think that is a good idea, but we do not mandate it. It does not mandate any new, burdensome regulations or expensive technologies, and it does not force Americans to change their personal habits. It simply calls on the President to come up with a plan to lead in an effort to reduce the waste of oil. Now, in this House, even this is controversial, as amazing as it may seem. This seems to be the only place in America where trying not to waste oil is a bad thing. The other body voted on this very same amendment, and they voted to accept it 99 to 1. Now, I know we are going to hear in a minute that this is a back-door way to impose new standards or regulations. That is nonsense. The amendment only asks the President to come up with some ideas for not wasting oil, and there are a lot of different things that can be done: keeping tires properly inflated, improving air traffic management, ensuring that we reduce heavy truck idling, use fuel-efficient engine oil, weatherize homes that use heating oil. Now, all that we have to have the President do is to come up with ideas and to appeal to the American people on a patriotic basis that they simply should be more conscious of the waste and perhaps shut off their cars when they run into a Starbucks. I have no doubt the American people would respond. It worked in California. When we had our energy crisis a few years ago, we had a real energy crunch, and the people in California pitched in and, almost overnight, reduced energy waste by 4 to 10 percent, depending on whose numbers you accept. Overnight, with no preparation, California achieved the small reduction that this amendment calls for. That is the least we can do. This legislation that is before us overall is going to increase the amount of oil we are going to have to bring in from the Middle East. We are going to be more and more dependent. For our national security's sake, we ought to simply reduce some of the waste in oil that goes on every single year. I am particularly struck that at a time when we have so many brave American men and women serving overseas, willing to sacrifice everything for us, we may not be able to muster the political will to ask the American people to chip in a little and reduce the waste of oil. If we defeat this amendment, we are waving the white flag. We are waving that white flag to surrender to the oil companies and the other special interests. We will be saying we simply will not even try. The greatest country in the world cannot even find the will to achieve small reductions in the waste of oil. I do not think that is the message we want to send. I would ask that my colleagues support this. This is a minimal step. It is common sense. At least it can put us on the side of trying to reduce waste. The President is simply called on to exert that leadership to come up with a plan. If he does not think he can do it, well, he does not have to do it. But if he has some ideas, let us try to do at least the minimum we can do to reduce the waste of oil that is causing us to bring in and use, and in fact overuse, oil that we have to bring in from overseas. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, Republican leaders say that the bill before us is comprehensive energy legislation that will meet the Nation's energy needs by protecting the environment and safeguarding consumers. Well, these are the right goals, but there is only one problem: The bill accomplishes none of them. This is an antienvironment, anticonsumer, antitaxpayer bill. This bill fails to provide secure, sustainable, and affordable energy supplies. It does nothing about the most important energy issues facing our Nation, like addressing global warming and reducing the Nation's dependence on foreign oil. Instead, this bill lavishes taxpayer subsidies on big energy companies, while weakening our environmental laws. I have never encountered a time when the disconnect between rhetoric and reality has been so enormous. The President says he wants to save Social Security, yet he proposes a plan that would cut benefits and privatize the program. Republicans in Congress say they want limited government, yet they enact legislation intruding on the end-of-life decisions for the poor woman in Florida. Congressional leaders say they want to support high moral standards in government, yet they gut the ethics process in the House. And in this so-called energy bill we shower billions on special interests while ignoring our Nation's serious energy needs. The Republican energy plan is a bonanza for the energy industry. While natural gas, heating oil, and gasoline prices have skyrocketed, we are going to be giving these companies more money. Shell Oil reported the highest corporate profits in the history of the United Kingdom. ExxonMobil announced the largest annual profit ever made by a public company, $25 billion. There are steps we could take to address our energy problems, but this legislation ignores them. We urgently need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, yet America's dependence on oil imports will grow by 75 percent over the next 20 years under this bill. The bill fails to address the market abuse and manipulation that caused the California energy crisis, costing consumers in California and western States billions of dollars. This bill carves a loophole in the laws protecting our coastlines, our forests, and our public lands. And under this bill, when a big oil company pollutes community drinking water, the oil companies will no longer be held responsible for cleaning it up. It is a windfall for ExxonMobil, but an attack on communities all around this country facing contaminated drinking water. This bill makes the most significant changes to the Clean Air Act in 15 years, allowing corporate polluters to expose 53 million Americans to air pollution for years longer than current law. I urge my colleagues to oppose this fundamentally flawed legislation.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask unanimous consent to be able to go back to that amendment.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Waxman amendment No. 9 be allowed to be offered at any time to H.R. 6.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, today I am again joining with Representative Boehlert in introducing the ``Clean Smokestacks Act of 2005.'' This important legislation will finally clean up the Nation's dirty, antiquated power plants. When I originally introduced the ``Clean Smokestacks Act'' with Representative Boehlert in the 106th Congress, we had a modest beginning. We had a total of 15 cosponsors and little attention. But in the 107th and 108th Congresses, the bill's supporters grew to over 100 House members. During that time, Senator Jeffords successfully reported the companion legislation, the ``Clean Power Act'' from Committee. And even the Bush Administration, at least in rhetoric, recognizes that we urgently need to clean up these power plants. Electricity generation is our Nation's single largest source of air pollution, including greenhouse gas emissions. Nationally, power plants are responsible for about 39 percent of carbon dioxide emissions, 67 percent of sulfur dioxide emissions, 22 percent of nitrogen oxides emissions and 41 percent of mercury emissions. These four pollutants are the major cause of some of the most serious environmental problems the Nation faces, including acid rain, smog, respiratory illness, mercury contamination, and global warming. If we are going to improve air quality and reduce global warming, we must curb the emissions from these power plants. Earlier this week, EPA took a first half-step towards reducing emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides emissions from some of these old plants, but EPA's regulation would still allow huge quantities of pollution from these plants and leave many plants operating without any modern pollution controls, On mercury, EPA's regulation would allow most old power plants to avoid ever installing pollution controls to reduce mercury emissions. And EPA has done nothing to address increasing carbon dioxide emissions from these plants. When the original Clean Air Act was enacted in 1970, the electric utility industry argued that stringent controls should not be imposed on the oldest, dirtiest plants since they would soon be replaced by new state-of-the-art facilities. Although Congress acceded to these arguments and shielded old power plants from the law's requirements, many of these facilities--which were already old in 1970--are still in use. There are many power plants from the 1950's that are still in operation and have never had to meet the environmental requirements that a new facility would. As a result, a single plant in the Midwest can emit as much NOX pollution as the entire state of Massachusetts. The Clean Smokestacks Act says it is time to clean up these aging plants. The Act sets strong emissions reduction requirements for all four of the key pollutants from power plants, and it finally sets a deadline for old plants to install modern pollution controls. The Act allows for emissions trading to increase flexibility and reduce costs, where trading won't cause environmental harm. And the Clean Smokestacks Act promotes cost-effective energy efficiency and renewable energy measures, which help reduce pollution and save consumers money. This approach just makes sense. Because these power plants are so old and so dirty, cleaning them up provides tremendous benefits at reasonable costs. This is one of the cheapest ways to get significant air quality improvements. And it finally provides a level playing field for new and old plants. At the same time, this approach gives industry the benefit of increasing regulatory certainty by targeting all four pollutants at once. Industry can make better investments if it knows what all of the emissions requirements will be over the next decade or so. Finally, the Clean Smokestacks Act recognizes that we need clean air, not regulatory loopholes for irresponsible energy companies, so it leaves the Clean Air Act in place. Since we first introduced this bill, the President has unveiled a competing proposal, which has been introduced as S. 131 in the Senate. The Administration claims that S. 131 targets the same goal of cleaning up power plants. It's important to recognize, however, that the Clean Smokestacks Act and S. 131 are not similar proposals with different levels of stringency. Rather, they have fundamentally different purposes and effects. The Administration's proposal aims to help the energy industry escape tough enforcement of the Clean Air Act. It does this by rewriting significant portions of the Clean Air Act to weaken or delete key environmental protections that are cleaning up the air. For example, S. 131 would give power plants an extra 10 years to avoid reducing toxic mercury emissions. S. 131 would also allow people to breathe unsafe air for years longer, limit the rights of states to protect themselves against out-of-state pollution, and weaken protections for national parks, among other changes to the Clean Air Act. Not surprisingly, industry is spending millions to urge Congress to adopt S. 131, while advocates for public health and the environment, such as the American Lung Association, almost universally oppose the bill. Moreover, unlike the Clean Smokestacks Act, S. 131 does not guarantee that all outdated power plants will ever install modern air pollution controls. And because S. 131 does not address carbon dioxide emissions, it cannot promise to give industry certainty regarding future federal or state emissions reductions requirements. So let there be no mistake--the Clean Smokestacks Act in the House, and the Clean Power Act in the Senate, are the proposals to strengthen the Clean Air Act by finally closing the loophole for old dirty power plants and addressing all four pollutants they emit. In conclusion, let me commend Rep. Boehlert and all of the supporters of this legislation. I am pleased to be part of this bipartisan, bicameral approach to strengthening the Clean Air Act and protecting our environment.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, time and time again, the Bush administration has not been straightforward with Congress, the American people, or our soldiers about the costs of this war and what it will take to ensure stability and security in Iraq so our troops can return home. Instead of disclosing the actual findings of field reports on contracting audits, troop needs, or the projected cost of the reconstruction effort, the administration has withheld, distorted, and even deliberately hidden information. Just this week, despite the administration's refusal to turn Pentagon audits over to Congress, I obtained a report by Defense Department auditors concluding that Halliburton overcharged the U.S. Government more than $100 million for a single task order under its no-bid $7 billion contract to restore Iraq's oil infrastructure. I would like to know why unredacted versions of this audit report and the audit reports on nine additional task orders are still being withheld from Congress. I have also learned that administration officials violated a U.N. Security Council Resolution by intentionally concealing these overcharges from international auditors. The administration only provided heavily redacted audits to the international auditors charged with overseeing the Iraqi oil revenue used to pay Halliburton's inflated costs. Worst of all, correspondence between the Army Corps of Engineers and Halliburton officials indicates it was Halliburton that blacked-out references to egregious overcharges and other key audit findings regarding the unreasonableness of Halliburton's prices. I am deeply disappointed that the House voted down an amendment calling for the investigation of reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan including contracting procedures, possible money laundering, and profiteering. It is disturbing that the Republican leadership has been unwilling to assert its oversight responsibility and demand fiscal accountability. The administration has not complied with Congressional mandates to provide a comprehensive breakdown of the $200 billion already spent in Iraq and Afghanistan and a detailed assessment of the projected costs of military and reconstruction activities in Iraq over the next 5 years. The White House has failed to justify a permanent extension of tax cuts for the wealthy while paying for the war with mounting deficits and massive budget cuts to social programs. And when it comes to our troops, it has been Congress, not the administration, prioritizing force protection needs and the procurement of safety essentials like armored Humvees, body armor, night vision equipment, and jamming devices to neutralize the improvised explosive devices that are among the biggest threats to U.S. patrols. I am willing to support this supplemental precisely because it allocates a majority of funds for troop and equipment needs and training of Iraqi security forces. This is a vast improvement over the blank check requested by the administration to pursue its less accountable reconstruction efforts. No matter how each of us feels about the administration's actions that led to war and its conduct since then--and I have been one of its strongest critics--we have an obligation to ensure that our troops have the support and equipment they need as long as they are in the field. In addition, the funding in this legislation for training and equipment for Iraqi and Afghan security forces is essential for these nations to take control of their own security so U.S. troops can come home. Some who oppose this legislation believe that its defeat would hasten the return of our troops. Although it is critically important for the U.S. to develop an exit strategy, I am deeply concerned that a premature withdrawal of U.S. troops just after Iraq's democratic elections and as its leaders attempt the difficult task of forming a coalition government would only embolden the Al-Qaeda cells fueling the insurgency in Iraq. I also strongly support other provisions of the legislation to pay for food aid and peacekeeping in the Sudan, as well as the more than $650 million allocated for relief and reconstruction to the countries devastated by the tsunami. I fully support the $200 million included in this bill for economic revitalization and infrastructure development in the West Bank and Gaza. The end of the Arafat era presents a concrete opportunity for the Palestinian people to chart a future away from terrorism, corruption, and incitement and toward democracy, transparency, and the rule of law. This aid package is a strategic and timely investment in the leadership of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. The accountability requirements in this bill will set an example for the international community for formulating assistance packages that protect against cronyism, embezzlement, and mismanagement, which in the past siphoned millions of dollars to Arafat loyalists and terrorist organizations. And so, I will vote for this legislation to support our troops and to support these other worthwhile U.S. humanitarian endeavors, but we have an obligation to hold the Bush administration accountable for its policies in Iraq.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this so-called Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act. It increases the power of government to censor programming that some might consider indecent and others might not. We are already seeing the corrosive effect of this legislation on free speech as broadcasters anticipate its enactment. Faced with the potentially ruinous fines and the loss of their licenses, broadcasters have begun to self-censor even permissible speech. Last Veterans Day, 65 ABC affiliates declined to air ``Saving Private Ryan'' in response to an organization's campaign against it even though the movie had aired two previous years without any indecency complaints from the public. And the Federal Communications Commission has provided no constructive guidance to broadcasters. It is creating greater confusion by applying an already-vague indecency standard in an inconsistent and arbitrary manner. No one knows when one person's creative work will become a violation of another person's definition of decency. Creative works that tackle challenging themes that are controversial but important are threatened by this legislation. Everything is objectionable to someone. A few years ago one of our colleagues took to the House floor to condemn the broadcast of the Oscar award-winning film ``Schindler's List.'' He was outraged that scenes portraying Holocaust victims contained some nudity. Legislation such as this can lead us to these kinds of absurd results. Let us trust parents to know better than government officials what material they want their children to be exposed to. And let us have adults be able to watch television programming that is not so watered down, that the only thing we will see on television is suitable for a 5-year-old whose parents are prudes. I reject this legislation. I plan to vote against it, and I urge my colleagues to join me.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding time to me. I rise today to raise serious concerns with some of the provisions in H.R. 418 that have not been thoroughly considered, in large part because the bill was not considered by our committee. No matter what our views are on immigration, States' rights or a national ID, my colleagues should carefully review the driver's license requirements of H.R. 418. Simply stated, the bill imposes costly new requirements on States that simply cannot be achieved in 3 years allotted by the bill; and while States may attempt to comply, the bill's unreasonable deadlines and inadequate funding will create confusion and frustrate the public. Congress previously recognized that States should play an integral role in implementing new driver's license standards. That is why the 9/ 11 legislation that we passed just 2 months ago directed the Department of Homeland Security to consult with the States first and then issue appropriate regulations. H.R. 418 repeals this sound regulatory approach and leaves the States without a voice. One of the biggest problem areas is that the bill requires State departments of motor vehicles to verify the issuance, validity, and completeness of birth certificates with issuing agencies. Currently, birth certificates are not issued or maintained in a uniform manner. States, counties, cities and localities all across the country issue birth certificates. In fact, experts estimate that up to 14,000 jurisdictions within the United States currently issue birth certificates. Many of these jurisdictions do not have automated records but keep paper copies at the local courthouse. Even if they were to begin automated records of new births, they would still need to automate millions of preexisting birth certificates. H.R. 418 also requires States to verify the issuance, validity and completeness of various other documents with various Federal agencies that do not yet have fully automated systems in place. These requirements will be expensive and time-consuming. Ultimately the databases will be built that will allow States to conduct rapid verification of these birth certificates and other documents; but in most States and localities, they do not currently exist, and the experts say it will take a whole lot longer than 3 years to create them. That is why the bill is opposed by the States. It is opposed by the National Governors Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures and even the DMV trade association, the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators. The best timeline estimate from State DMVs is that will take 10 to 12 years for all of the required automation to occur. Yet H.R. 418 requires verification within just 3 years. In the meantime, what will happen? States will not be able to issue same-day driver's licenses, the public will be frustrated, and homeland security will not be advanced. In addition to the unworkable nature of the driver's license provisions in this bill, I want to raise my deep concern about section 102 of this legislation. This section provides the Secretary of Homeland Security the authority to waive any law for the purposes of building immigration barriers along the border. I do not understand why we need to provide the administration with unilateral authority to waive labor laws, State and local laws, environmental laws, tax codes and criminal laws. This does not apply just in San Diego. It applies throughout the Nation. I am sad to say this bill presents a dangerous new precedent. The Federal Government has never before had unilateral authority to waive child labor laws, civil rights laws, and environmental laws. For Republican Members who want to rein in the unchecked authority of the Federal Government, they might want to carefully examine this provision, which expands it enormously. I urge my colleagues to oppose the legislation.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 56 and join my colleagues in congratulating President Mahmoud Abbas on his election and commending the Palestinian people on their effort to restore democracy and accountability to the Palestinian Authority. Unfortunately, the Palestinian people suffered greatly under the leadership of their previous President, Yasser Arafat. The Arafat regime was plagued by severe corruption, duplicity, a lack of respect for freedom and human rights, and worst of all a senseless campaign of terrorism that imperiled Palestinian efforts to build a state and make peace with Israel. With the election of President Abbas, I hope the Palestinian people have embarked on a new path in a much more promising direction. Already President Abbas has made statements condemning terrorism and deployed Palestinian patrols into the areas of Gaza that have been mounting mortar attacks against Israeli communities. He has also begun to tamp down on anti-Israel and anti-Semitic incitement in the official Palestinian media and lay the groundwork to reduce tensions. The path ahead is difficult. President Abbas's success will depend on his willingness and ability to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and other groups. His consolidation of power in Gaza will be essential for the Palestinian people to constructively take advantage of opportunity created by Israel's disengagement plan. But he must follow a path charted with hope rather than hate, and democracy instead of demagoguery. The Roadmap for Peace set forth a vision of two states living side by side in peace and security that was indefinitely delayed because of Arafat's intransigence. Let us all hope that these elections and President Abbas's leadership will finally be a first step back in the right direction.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, this week marks the 60th anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz-Birkenau death camp. Around the world we join together to mourn the millions of Jews and others who perished in its gruesome gates. We reaffirm our collective responsibility to wipe out anti-Semitism and hatred and remember the silence that let the Holocaust go unnoticed for so long. Auschwitz was only one of many extermination camps the Nazi's used, but it was the largest and the place where the gas chambers were first refined for mass murder. The searing image of the many tracks leading straight to its crematoria is a tragic emblem of its horrors. It is also a painful reminder of the United States government's decision not to bomb those tracks when it had the chance and its refusal to admit Jewish refugees who later arrived at the camp's railroad platforms. Yesterday, for the first time in its history, the United Nations held a special session to commemorate the Holocaust and the Auschwitz liberation. While this is appropriate, we should not forget that this international organization, set up to stop atrocities such as the ones in the Second World War, has spent so much of its effort criticizing Israel, the nation that emerged from the remnants of the Holocaust, and still today has refused to designate the murders in Darfur as an official genocide. Today we say ``never again'' to both the intolerance that created Auschwitz and the intransigence that stopped the world from acting sooner. At the same time, we must turn our attention to the neglected crises of our day like the genocide in Darfur where more than 2.2 million people have already been victimized and displaced by a brutal campaign of ethnic cleansing. The only way to fight indifference is to make a difference. One example is a project undertaken by the students of Miliken Community High School in Los Angeles. These students raised more than $10,000 this year to donate to the International Medical Corps to build water wells for displaced refugees in Chad and Sudan. I am very proud of them for reaching out to help improve the lives of some of the world's most vulnerable people. Let us all learn from their example and the lessons of history so we do not need to wait for 60 years to mark a genocide we might prevent or stop.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to come to terms with Bob's loss. It was a shock and so tragic. He was kind and decent beyond measure. He put a human face on the all too often theoretical debates on health care, Social Security, child welfare and tax policy, and he was always a voice of reason. Bob cared about the challenges real people faced, children in foster care, workers struggling for a fair shot and seniors whose Social Security checks make the difference between life in or out of poverty. In 1988, Bob helped the Nation come to terms with the terrible wrong our government committed against Japanese Americans during World War II. Bob and his family were forced into an internment camp when he was 6 months old. His parents were both U.S.-born citizens, but they lost their home and family business during the three-and-a-half years their family was interned. Bob became the first Japanese American elected to the Sacramento City Council and one of the first Japanese Americans in Congress. He spent his career fighting injustice. Among his many efforts, he established a task force I was privileged to co-chair with him to give Members of Congress with diverse backgrounds a better understanding of the grave threats that Israel and the Israeli people face. On a personal level, I considered Bob one of my closest friends in this institution. We spent time together, often when I took advantage of the fact that our Bethesda homes were close by each other and hitched a ride with him. I know Bob's center of gravity was his family, his wife Doris, his son Brian, his daughter-in-law Amy and what he made clear was the most adorable granddaughter in the whole world, Anna. He was so proud of Brian and his accomplishments, his clerking for the Supreme Court of the United States and making more money in his first year in a law firm than even Members of the United States Congress. He cared deeply about his efforts to make a difference through public service and the principles and values of the Democratic Party, and this took him to the position of sacrifice as chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Janet and I were so grateful for our friendships over the decade with Bob and Doris. We want to extend our deep condolences to the family, the entire family during this sorrowful time. This is an enormous loss for his family, for his friends and for this entire country.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to discuss a number of provisions included in the conference report for H.R. 4200, the Defense Authorization bill for fiscal year 2005. The conference report includes a provision that restricts from access under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), ``data that are collected by land remote sensing and are prohibited from sale to customers other than the United States and its affiliated users.'' The effect of this language is that non-confidential commercial satellite imagery, which the government has purchased, would be restricted from disclosure to the public. This section extends this restriction to products that are derived from those data. That would mean that maps, reports, and any other analyses or communications that are derived from the exempted satellite image would also be inaccessible through FOIA. This section also preempts State and local public disclosure laws that would provide access to these data. Public access to these data and products derived from these data is essential for effective participation in governmental actions, especially those by local governments that affect their daily lives. Government agencies use licensed and/or purchased imagery data in regulatory proceedings and numerous other mandated activities. The public requires access to this imagery in order to participate in these proceedings and importantly, to be informed about the activities of Government. This point was emphasized by the National Academy of Sciences in its recent report, Licensing Geographic Data and Services: When geographic data are used to design or administer regulatory schemes or formulate policy, affect the rights and obligations of citizens, or have likely value for the broader society as indicated by a legislative or regulatory mandate, the agency should evaluate whether the data should be acquired under terms that permit unlimited public access or whether more limited access may suffice to support the agency's mandates and missions and the agency's actions in judicial and other review. (page 229). The bill's sweeping exemption is even contradictory to the advice the administration has solicited on access to geospatial information. In a report prepared for the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, the RAND National Defense Research Institute recommends that Federal agencies and other organizations use an analytical process to assess the potential homeland security sensitivity of specific pieces of publicly available geospatial information and to determine if restricting access to these specific pieces would enhance security. They recommend that such a process include analysis of the usefulness of the information to an attacker; its uniqueness; and the expected societal benefits of access and the costs of restricting the information. The process through which this section was developed is contrary to the fundamental principles represented by the Freedom of Information Act. FOIA is a tool for protecting public access to their government's actions. This amendment was developed behind closed doors. Laws that limit the use of FOIA for public oversight of government actions should only be enacted after wide public consultation and discussion, which has not occurred with this provision. Mr. Speaker, I am also disappointed with a provision of this conference report affecting OMB Circular A-76, which lays out the procedures used when the government privatizes work currently performed by federal employees. Under existing law, the private sector has the legal right to protest the results of such a public/private competition, but the public sector employees do not. This is fundamentally unfair. The Senate bill would have addressed this inequity by granting both the official who submits the agency's bid, and a person representing a majority of the affected federal employees legal standing to protest at both the GAO and in the Court of Federal Claims. Instead of adopting this approach, the conference report gives standing only to the agency official, and only at the GAO. The report also requires the agency official to file a protest if a majority of the affected federal employees request that he do so, unless the official determines there is no reasonable basis to protest. While this limited approach is an improvement over existing law, I would have preferred the original Senate language, and will continue working to ensure that federal employees have all the legal rights currently afforded to contractors. Finally, I strongly oppose section 3116, a provision that reverses an important aspect of the nation's nuclear waste cleanup policy. Specifically, it allows the Department of Energy to abandon millions of gallons of highly radioactive waste in leaking tanks in South Carolina and Idaho. It also sets a dangerous precedent for the cleanup of radioactive waste in Washington. This provision has not been adequately considered in either chamber of Congress.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, today I'd like to recognize the important work of the Center for Civic Education and the upcoming Second Annual Congressional Conference on Civic Education, which will be held this December in Washington, DC. The Center for Civic Education plans annual congressional conferences to focus attention on the importance of civic preparation and engagement in the United States. The first conference was sponsored by the Alliance for Representative Democracy and hosted by the Joint Leadership of the United States Congress here in Washington in September 2003. The 2003 conference led to the formation of state delegations that are currently working on policies that will restore the civic mission of our schools, consistent with each state's unique education structure. I'd like to commend the California delegation and its facilitator, Roy Erickson, for their leadership in the current efforts to design an action plan for our state. California is creating coalitions of stakeholders in public education who will build support for, develop and implement high quality civic education programs. Through these programs, we will ensure that our youth have the necessary civic knowledge, skills and attitudes to be engaged citizens. I want to express my strong support for the Center for Civic Education's efforts to increase democratic participation, and for the work of the upcoming conference.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the conference report. This legislation is stuffed with special interest giveaways. It contains billions in undeserved corporate tax breaks. Even foreign gamblers who make money at dog tracks get a special tax break. I would like to talk about one of the most egregious provisions in this bill--a $10 billion handout to tobacco growers. This giveaway enriches hundreds of tobacco quota holders who are already millionaires. Less than 10 percent of those who benefit will take home 67 percent of the money. More than $3 billion will go to people who do not even grow tobacco. Not a dime goes to help rural communities transition away from a tobacco-based economy. The biggest winner is the tobacco industry itself. When tobacco quotas are eliminated, U.S. production of tobacco leaf will skyrocket, and the prices will plummet. A USDA economist has estimated has estimated that lower leaf prices will generate more than a billion dollars in profits for the tobacco industry each year. This windfall will far outstrip what the companies will pay to quota holders and growers. What will tobacco companies do with the extra cash? Some will lower prices, attracting more children. Others will expand their advertising and marketing to youth. And without legislation granting authority to the FDA to oversee the tobacco industry, there will be virtually nothing to stop them. Congress had a historic opportunity to add legislation giving FDA jurisdiction over tobacco to this bill. The FDA provision would have outlawed candy-flavored cigarettes, cigarettes that look like crayons, and other products explicitly designed to appeal to children. It would have provided for strong government oversight of our most deadly consumer product. But this historic opportunity was squandered. The House leadership chose profits for the tobacco industry over protecting our children from addiction, suffering, and death. This choice is shameful, and it symbolizes the misplaced priorities of this House. I urge my colleagues to deny a victory for tobacco companies and stand up for children and families across the country. I urge you to reject this bill and fight for strong government oversight over tobacco products

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney), a member of the Committee on Government Reform.