Henry Waxman

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, like many of my colleagues, I was disappointed that the Republican majority would not accept the Eshoo amendment to even be offered to the Members of the House as we had requested of the Committee on Rules. This will certainly come as a disappointment to Western families. As everyone knows, in the year 2000 and 2001, energy companies like Enron ruthlessly gouged Nevada, California, Washington and Oregon. Yet for too long, this administration and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission tried to hide this reality from Congress and the public. In fact, energy Secretary Spencer Abraham dismissed the whole matter as a myth. Vice President Cheney met with all of us and said it is overzealous environmental laws that are causing this problem. He did not tell us that at the same time he was meeting with Enron officials in the capacity as chairman of his energy committee, and he would not tell us who else he met with, because now even the Supreme Court has allowed him to continue without disclosing that information for a while. Price gouging occurred in both 2000 and 2001. Yet FERC has said it only intends to grant refunds for gouging that occurred in October 2000 and thereafter. The Eshoo amendment would have required FERC to issue refunds whenever the gouging occurred, whether the misconduct occurred before or after October 2000. This is only common sense. A law breaker is a law breaker regardless of when the law is broken, and the people who have lost their funds and demand a refund as a result of this manipulation are entitled to it. Without the Eshoo amendment, FERC will continue to settle cases behind closed doors for only pennies on the dollar. Without the Eshoo amendment, Western families stand to lose billions of dollars in legitimate refunds. However, today, the House is going to agree unanimously to a small part of the Eshoo amendment, and that is to require FERC to turn over and reveal the documents and other evidence that they have about the misdeeds of Enron and other energy companies. This is a positive step, but the real test will come to see whether the Republican majority will make sure that FERC now lives up to this directive. I am disappointed we did not go further. This is a small step forward, but the point that I want to underscore is that justice is not being done.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 460 and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's proposed disengagement plan to remove settlements and certain military outposts from Gaza and areas of the West Bank. This initiative gives hope for the future of the peace process and the effort to end the suffering of the Israeli and Palestinian people. Since putting forth a bold peace initiative at Camp David in 2000, the Israeli side has endured years of terrorist attacks that have taken the lives of nearly 1,000 civilians. Israeli troops are now reengaged in Palestinian areas they once hoped they had left for good. Among Palestinians there is also despair. Instead of taking the measures to pursue statehood and independence, the Palestinian leadership has recruited their children for suicide attacks, and weakened their economy with corruption and the siphoning of funds for terrorist activities. The disengagement plan presents a much needed opportunity to reduce tensions, make Israel more secure, and give the Palestinian people an opportunity for self-governance. The proposal will also set the stage for future negotiations by putting pressure on the Palestinian leadership to undertake the internal economic and political reforms necessary to improve quality of life and build the institutions for statehood. I believe it is equally important that in endorsing the Sharon initiative on April 14, the President also underscored two fundamental realities to be taken into consideration once final status negotiations ultimately resume. First, that the open-ended Palestinian claim to a right of return for refugees is demographically untenable for Israel's future as a Jewish state. And second that existing demographics need to be taken into account in future negotiations to provide Israel with secure, recognized, and defensible borders and provide the territory for a Palestinian state. Some say a clear U.S. position on these issues prejudges the outcome of the negotiations, but these realities are the very same principles that guided the peace effort initiated by President Clinton at Camp David. Those negotiations failed not because of the U.S. position, but because Yasser Arafat responded to Israel's offer with terrorism and violence instead of full-faith negotiations. The Israeli and Palestinian people deserve a better future. I urge my colleagues to support his resolution and the commitment of the United States to remain engaged and stand prepared to broker a final status agreement when a credible and willing Palestinian leadership prepared to embrace peace emerges.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I include my statement in the Record, especially in opposition to the giveaway of taxpayers' dollars, the money that is going to go to those who hold quotas for big tobacco. I am here today to express my strong opposition to a $9.6 billion dollar taxpayer-funded tobacco bailout that has been slipped into unrelated legislation at the 11th hour. This proposal undermines public health, fleeces taxpayers, and embarrasses Congress. We have learned today that Americans reject this bailout by an eight to one margin. It is no surprise why. The bailout is a massive giveaway to Big Tobacco. The quota program keeps prices of tobacco leaf high. By ending the program, the legislation would cause the price to collapse. The result would be windfall profits for cigarette manufacturers. An Agriculture Department economist has estimated that Big Tobacco would pocket $15 billion dollars in profit over 14 years. This profit could then be used to lower prices and addict more children. The public health impact of this proposal is reason enough to reject it. But there's more. The proposal is also a shameless raid on the Federal treasury. It is a no-stings-attached $9.6 billion dollar cash transfer from taxpayers to tobacco growers. There is not even a guarantee that anyone will stop growing tobacco. Other farmers do not get this kind of treatment. Nor do factory workers, service employees, or anyone else that I know. It does not make any sense for the taxpayer to write checks to tobacco growers and not expect anything in return. Even newspapers in tobacco-growing regions have objected to this proposal. An idea this bad and unpopular could never pass the House in an honest, up-or-down vote. That's why the Republican leadership has refused to permit a vote on the bailout. Taxpayers deserve not to be fleeced. And parents need our help keeping their kids from becoming addicted to tobacco. But we are doing just the opposite by passing a massive giveaway to Big Tobacco. All we are asking is for the Republican leadership to schedule a vote on this proposal and let democracy take its course.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4517. This country has a real energy problem that we should be addressing. The Nations' dependence on oil is increasing. Our energy markets have been ravaged by corporate greed and left vulnerable to blackouts, and the country still has no plan to fight global warming. Unfortunately, the House Republican's Energy Week is simply a publicity stunt. They aim to highlight bills that do not address our energy problems and that will not be enacted this Congress. Over the past 2 days, the Republican leadership has brought two types of bills to the floor. First, we are repassing bills that will not make it into law, such as the President's energy policy; and, second, we have taken up legislation that the Republican leadership dreamed up in secret without hearings or markups or expert testimony or consultation with other Members of Congress. Yesterday, we debated the Gasoline Price Reduction Act, which has nothing to do with reducing gasoline prices; and today we consider H.R. 4517, the so-called Refinery Revitalization Act. So it is no surprise to find this bill is a marketing gimmick and not a serious piece of legislation. The bill is poorly drafted and unworkable, and we had no committee hearings on it and no committee markup. While some specifics are vague, the bill's fundamental purpose is clear. It aims to weaken public health and environmental regulations that apply to oil refineries. The idea seems to be if refiners are allowed to pollute more, they might save money and they might invest any such savings in refining capacity. Of course, there is nothing in the bill to stop oil companies from simply pocketing any savings for higher profits. There is also no evidence that pollution control requirements have had any negative effect on refinery capacity. Given recent record profits, the oil industry already has plenty of cash to invest in refinery capacity if it wants to do so. Many States may disagree with this approach, so H.R. 4517 allows the Department of Energy to simply override the State decisions. And when a large polluting facility such as a refinery is built or increases its emissions, the facility generally must obtain permits governing its releases of air and water pollution. A State usually grants a permit after hearing from the public and after working with a company to select appropriate pollution controls. But under this bill, the Department of Energy, not the State or even EPA, would set a time limit for granting a permit. This is a bizarre approach, as DOE has no experience issuing permits. Under this bill, even if a State wanted more information from a refiner, DOE could overrule the State and grant the permit. If a refiner refused to install pollution controls requested by a State, DOE could overrule the State and grant the permit. As a result, this bill is opposed by the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Environmental Council of the States, the State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators, and the Association of Local Pollution Control Officials. I will introduce letters of opposition from these organizations into the Record. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. National Conference of State Legislatures, Washington, DC, June 14, 2004. Re: H.R. 4517, the United States Refinery Revitalization Act of 2004. Hon. J. Dennis Hastert, Speaker of the House, Capitol Building, Washington, DC. Hon. Joe Barton, Chairman, House Energy and Commerce Committee, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, House Democratic Leader, Capitol Building, Washington, DC. Hon. John Dingell, Ranking Member, House Energy and Commerce Committee, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Representatives: The National Conference of State Legislatures opposes H.R. 4517, legislation the House of Representatives will consider this week that would establish an expedited Department of Energy-led permitting process for facilities located in Refinery Revitalization Zones (RRZ). This legislation comes to the House floor without the benefit of public hearings and scrutiny of the current state of domestic refinery permitting. States have authority over the permitting of domestic refineries and a state-federal partnership already is in place regarding permitting and operation of these refineries. H.R. 4517 circumvents and preempts both this authority and the existing state-federal partnership. NCSL urges you to oppose H.R. 4517 and recommit it to committee so that it can undergo the kind of legislative review and discussion needed to determine whether this legislation is warranted. H.R. 4517 appears to give the Secretary of the Department of Energy authority to override the decision of a state agency or official that results in the denial of a permit. It also transfers appeals of the Secretary's new permitting authority to federal court. This revamping of existing permitting and related activities preempts state authority and, to the extent NCSL can determine without the benefit of public hearings and reviews, is unnecessary. Thank you for consideration of our concerns. Please have you staff contact Michael Bird (202-624-8686; michael.bird@ncsl.org) or Gerri Madrid Davis (202-624-8670; gerri.madridloose@ncsl.org) for additional information. Sincerely, Representative Jack Barraclough, Idaho House of Representatives, Chair, NCSL, Environment and Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, once again I rise to oppose the Republican energy bill. The House has passed this bill several times already and now the majority wants to pass it again. It is time for the majority to face facts. They have overreached and they have failed. The Republican energy bill is stunningly expensive. The total price tag for America is around $140 billion. As the deficit continues to grow, this bill is only getting less affordable. The energy bill is also laden with giveaways to major campaign contributors. The oil and electric utility industries are among the Republicans' largest donors. This bill returns the favor using taxpayer dollars. It would provide roughly $20 billion in subsidies to the oil industry alone. It would also relax Clean Water Act and other environmental requirements for the oil industry. And it would let the oil industry off the hook for contaminating groundwater across the country, forcing taxpayers to pay for the cleanup. The tragedy is that we have real energy problems which are approaching a crisis. The United States' increasing dependence on oil adversely affects our economy, national security and the environment. Polluting and inefficient energy sources are driving potentially devastating global warming. U.S. energy markets are vulnerable to rampant manipulation and price spikes. But this bill would not solve any of these problems. In fact, it would make them worse. If we enacted this bill, the United States' dependence on foreign oil would continue to worsen. According to the Energy Information Administration, the U.S. will increase imports of foreign oil by 86 percent by 2025, and they project that this energy bill would reduce the amount of imports by only 1.2 percent by 2025. Reducing demand for oil by making motor vehicles more efficient would help hold down gas prices. If we enacted this bill, it would move us in the wrong direction on global warming by subsidizing traditional energy sources. If we enacted this bill, energy marketers could continue to manipulate markets and drive prices through the roof. Congress has done nothing since California and the West Coast States faced repeated blackouts and astronomic energy bills 3 years ago. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) proposed energy bill provisions to penalize fraud and manipulation in energy markets, but the Republicans rejected these provisions. This bill is a failure. It is a collection of subsidies for energy industries, masquerading as an energy policy. The Senate, the other body, including some of the Republican Members of the other body, rightly rejected this bill and I hope they will do so again. It is time for the House Republicans to give up the charade. We need an energy bill that will address our urgent energy problems. I suggest that this one does not do it. Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), distinguished member of the Committee on Government Reform, to offer his presentation on this resolution.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to President Ronald Reagan. President Reagan has been a part of my entire political life. President Reagan got his start in politics when he was elected Governor in 1966. Two years later, I got my start in politics when I was elected to the California legislature. I served in the State legislature until 1974, the last year of Governor Reagan's term. And, of course, I served in the Congress of the United States for the entire 8 years of his Presidency. I knew from those early days that President Reagan had remarkable political skills. He is known as the Great Communicator and, truly, he was. President Reagan knew how to connect with people. And he could articulate values and resonate across America and around the world with his ideals. He was also likable and charming. For many years, President Reagan was actually my constituent. Hollywood, the place and the industry associated with it, had a great impact on his life. It refined his communication skills and honed his sense of drama and delivery. And it gave him something that many people do not fully appreciate, an understanding that in America, with hard work and honest values, Hollywood endings really can come true. President Reagan thought our Nation should be a shining example to the world. And under his leadership, we were really admired and respected around the world. He viewed America as a city on the hill, a beacon for freedom and a model for democracy. And here is another thing many people do not fully appreciate: President Reagan was a pragmatic leader. He had strong convictions, but if he learned that those convictions were taking America in the wrong direction, he had the confidence and the wisdom to change course. As everyone knows, President Reagan was afflicted with Alzheimer's disease in the last 10 years of his life. President Reagan struggled with this terrible condition with great dignity. And with great courage he and his wife Nancy shared his struggle with the American people. It is a true tragedy that this country lost the opportunity to have this elder statesman involved and seek his advice and leadership in the last years of his life. I know that all of us in this body would like to find a fitting way to honor President Reagan's life. For my part, I can think of no better tribute than an accelerated effort to address the horrific disease known as Alzheimer's. Mrs. Reagan, the President's beloved wife, bravely spoke out about this just last month. In her moving words she said, ``Science has presented us with a hope called stem cell research which may provide our scientists with many answers that for so long have been beyond our grasp. We have lost so much time already. I just really cannot bear to lose any more.'' Well, it is past time for us to seize the potential that Nancy Reagan identified. There could be no important or more lasting legacy to her husband. America has lost a devoted citizen and a dedicated leader. I want Mrs. Reagan and the Reagan family to know they are in my heart and in my thoughts. President Reagan's passing is truly felt among Democrats and Republicans, by all Americans, and people of goodwill all around the world. We will certainly miss him. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, today we are voting on a bill that will limit access to most steroids. In principle, this is a good thing and, in general, I support this bill. However, this legislation is flawed. While it limits access for most steroids, it explicitly exempts a specific steroid precursor, DHEA, from the Anabolic Steroid Act, thereby reducing DEA's authority over this potentially dangerous product. Today there will be no opportunity to try to amend this legislation and make it better. That is unfortunate. Members could have benefited from a debate about whether we should, in fact, be protecting this particular product. Here is why I am concerned about the DHEA exemption. DHEA is a dietary supplement that is marketed as a performance enhancer as well as a rejuvenating product. DHEA is a hormone precursor. It converts to Andro, and then to testosterone and estrogen in the body. According to the NIH, there are concerns about dangerous side effects and the possibility of undiscovered health risks associated with these supplements. A recently published study found that athletes who take DHEA supplements might increase their risk of enlarged prostate. Even the dietary supplement industry itself recognizes the health concerns associated with this product. The Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN) puts Andro, which this legislation makes a controlled substance, and DHEA in the same category. CRN says that young people ``may be more susceptible than adults to adverse effects of steroid hormone precursors such as `andro' * * * and DHEA.'' Because of those safety concerns, CRN says that these products are inappropriate for use by athletes younger than 18. By specifically exempting DHEA we are sending a signal to the American public that DHEA is safe. This would be the wrong message. I suspect that once this legislation becomes law, we could see an increase in DHEA use, including among younger athletes, as the other products become less accessible. According to Gary Wadler, a member of the World Anti-Doping Agency panel and an NYU professor of medicine, medically, ``there is no reason to ban andro and not DHEA.'' The NCAA bans andro and DHEA. The World Anti-Doping Agency bans Andro and DHEA. Only this legislation bans andro but protects DHEA. This exclusion is not about the science. This is an exclusion that the dietary supplement industry insisted on and I fear that this exclusion could have real adverse health consequences for young athletes. I support this bill today because it represents an important step forward. But I am hopeful that this bill will be improved before we send it to the President.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Marla Bennett Israel Discovery Center and Garden at the Shalom Institute Camp and Conference Center, home of Camp JCA Shalom, located in the beautiful Malibu mountains. The Center will be dedicated on June 6, 2004 in honor of Marla Bennett, a remarkable and vibrant young woman whose life was tragically taken on July 31, 2002 in the terrorist attack in the cafeteria at Hebrew University Mt. Scopus campus in Jerusalem. Marla was a 24-year-old recent graduate of the University of California at Berkeley who was studying to obtain her masters' degree at Hebrew University. She was also training at the Pardes Institute to become a Jewish educator. Marla was well-known to the Jewish community at Berkeley and was a familiar face at countless organizations, including Hillel and Bayit, the Jewish student cooperative of UC Berkeley. Marla grew up at Camp JCA Shalom as a camper, counselor-in-training, counselor, unit head and, during the summer of 2001, the program director. During her time at Camp JCA Shalom, she touched the lives of thousands of campers and staff. Her infectious personality and compassion for others will be memorialized in the Marla Bennett Israel Discovery Center and Garden this weekend. The Center is an interactive hands-on learning center that teaches about the land, history and people of Israel; the flora and fauna of modern and ancient Israel; the relationship between Judaism and the environment; environmental awareness and protection; Jewish traditions, thoughts and values; and organic gardening and farming. During the summer, thousands of Camp JCA Shalom campers ages seven through 17 will have the opportunity to experience the Marla Bennett Israel Discovery Center and Garden. Throughout the year, the Center will be open to the community for field trips, weekend retreats and long-term educational studies. The Marla Bennett Israel Discovery Center and Garden is housed at the Shalom Institute Camp and Conference Center. Nestled in a beautiful wooded canyon in the Malibu Mountains and only 45 minutes from downtown Los Angeles, the Shalom Institute provides campers of all ages positive Jewish experiences, a greater appreciation for the environment and lots of fun activities. From children to seniors, the Shalom Institute offers exciting programs throughout the year for campers of all ages. The Marla Bennett Israel Discovery Center and Garden will be a welcome addition to the Shalom Institute and will serve to keep Marla's exuberant spirit and memory alive. I ask my colleagues to join me in the dedication of the Marla Bennett Israel Discovery Center and Garden.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, so much of the time in this institution in recent years has been partisan, rancorous comments back and forth, difficult feelings among the Members; and this year, which is an election year, has exacerbated all of that. So it is important to note that Democrats and Republicans are joined together because what we are all experiencing is a significant loss for this institution, for the people's House, the House of Representatives. Charlie Johnson has served as an integral part of the legislative process, and I feel privileged to have had the opportunity to work with him over the years. We have been the beneficiaries of his intellect, thoughtfulness, and integrity time and time again. Several years ago, Charlie noted that his predecessor, William Brown, had set a standard of ``intellectual vigor, sharing of information, and a sharing of responsibility with a grace that was accompanied by a total devotion to the House of Representatives.'' Charlie has more than met that standard. He does serve an important role, but it is more than just the role he serves. He has embodied the person that all of us can look to as one who will judge the issues with fairness based on the rules, based on the idea that laws govern not just individuals, and that when he makes his determination on all of the precedents and the exact wording of the rules, we know that is the course that we all have to agree to. I came here from the California State legislature, and I think many legislatures are like this, the speaker has complete control. The speaker gets to appoint the Members to the committees and the chairmen, and assigns the members' offices and staff, and the speaker can make the rulings, and it is the speaker's authority alone to make the rulings. So when I came here, I was surprised to find out that the Speaker could not just make a decision that benefited those of us on a certain side of the issue. He had to go to Charlie Johnson to find out what the rules were, and he had to abide by that decision. I have come to realize how important that is for an institution to be able to have someone with such integrity and knowledge that we can look to to be the final say on what the rules are because we have to follow the rules in this institution and in a country that looks to the rule of law as essential. I have come to recognize that as important, just as I have come over the years to recognize even the importance of seniority, which I more and more appreciate the longer I am here. I want to say that I have not only benefited from Charlie's wisdom and advice but from his friendship. I have not had the opportunity to travel with him. Maybe now that Charlie is leaving, we will have to go on an Elder Hostel trip together because we are advancing in age. He has been a terrific friend to me, someone I have tremendous respect for, and it is shared by everyone in this institution. He is certainly going to be missed. This is a change that many of us hoped we would not see, not only with Charlie's absence but a change in his guidance for all of us; and I join all of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, in supporting this resolution to thank him for a job well done.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I will vote for H.R. 4200, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005, because it contains a number of provisions that I support that will address the needs of the brave men and women serving on the front lines in Iraq, as well as the needs of our dedicated members of the civil service here at home. This bill includes much needed increases in separation allowance and combat pay for troops that are deployed in combat. It also includes provisions that will greatly improve the A-76 process, which governs competitions between the private sector and federal employees. These provisions will ensure, among other things, that federal employees are permitted to compete for their jobs before they are outsourced to the private sector and will give them the same legal rights as contractors enjoy. These are important protections that I strongly support. However, I have a number of concerns with other provisions in the bill, and believe it should have gone further than it does in some areas. Iraq is fast becoming a hall of mirrors. When the Administration says conditions are getting better, they are probably getting worse. When the Administration says they have a plan, they usually don't. And when the Administration says they are trying to build an international coalition, they may actually be further alienating our allies. We can add another contradiction to this list: When the Administration says they will closely scrutinize the work of private contractors in Iraq, what they mean is that they have given the contractors a virtual blank check. The Coalition Provisional Authority has identified over 2,000 specific reconstruction projects in Iraq. The contracts to perform this work should be bid competitively, so that market forces would dictate the costs to taxpayers. But under the Administration's approach, not a single one of the 2,000 reconstruction projects will be awarded on the basis of competition. Instead, they will all be performed on a cost- plus basis by large private contractors who have been awarded monopolies over large sectors of the reconstruction effort. The public wonders why unsupervised private contractors would be allowed to interrogate and abuse prisoners in Abu Ghraib . . . how Halliburton could be allowed to charge inflated prices for gasoline and to submit bills for millions of meals it never served . . . and why there is so little to show for the billions that the Administration has spent on the reconstruction effort. There is one answer to all of these questions: whether by design or incompetence, the Administration is failing in its responsibility to oversee the reconstruction effort and to protect the taxpayer from waste, fraud, and abuse. Under these circumstances, aggressive and impartial oversight is obviously crucial. Yet as I and others described in a report released yesterday, the Administration has outsourced this essential oversight responsibility to private contractors who have significant conflicts of interest. While Parsons is supposed to oversee Fluor's electricity work in Iraq, Parsons and Fluor have a huge $2.6 billion joint venture in Kazakhstan. CH2M Hill has been permitted to oversee the Iraq work of Washington Group International, Fluor, and AMEC even though it has existing contractual relationships with all three companies in the United States. Parsons is even in a position to benefit its own reconstruction efforts through the use of its oversight powers. This is an unacceptable situation that I would have liked to address with an amendment to this bill. Unfortunately, it was not made in order. Another way to ensure vigorous congressional oversight of the Iraqi reconstruction efforts would be to require the Defense Department to provide contract information to both the chair and ranking members of committees with jurisdiction. For months I have attempted to obtain information from the Administration about the contracting in Iraq. For the most part, the Administration has a poor record of complying with these requests. I have written four letters to the White House requesting information about the inflated prices Halliburton was charging to import gasoline into Iraq under a sole source, IDIQ contract from the Army Corps of Engineers. The only responses they received were two nearly identical, two-paragraph letters from Condoleezza Rice saying that Pentagon auditors are investigating the overcharges. The White House hasn't offered any justification for Halliburton's $2.64 per gallon price of gasoline from Kuwait. The White House hasn't turned over task orders or invoices for the gasoline importation work either. It's not just the White House. I've also written to Secretary Rumsfeld to request information about Halliburton's subcontractors and the process by which they were selected. I sought basic documents, like the subcontracts themselves and the bid proposals from potential subcontractors. Over five months have passed, but the Defense Department has not produced any of the requested documents. Under the bill, the Department is required to respond to a request from the Ranking Member of the Armed Services Committee. That is a start. I would have liked to offer an amendment to also require the Department to respond to the Government Reform Committee, which has government-wide jurisdiction over contracting issues. But again, unfortunately, the amendment was not made in order. One of the reasons events are not going well in Iraq is that there has not been enough accountability and oversight by this House. No one was held accountable for the Administration's false claim that Iraq attempted to obtain uranium from Niger or misleading claims about Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction. While we all agree that the abuse and torture of Iraqi detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison is completely unacceptable and universally condemn this illegal and inhumane misconduct, the House has yet to fully investigate this terrible episode. Today, I offered a procedural motion to express the sense of the House of Representatives that a select committee should immediately be established to investigate the treatment of detainees held by the Administration in connection with the global war on terrorism. A select committee is necessary because this House has ignored its constitutional responsibility for holding the Administration accountable. Time and time again, the Republican leadership has demonstrated that it has no interest in performing any serious oversight of the Administration. I am disappointed that the motion failed by a vote of 202-224. There are other troubling elements of this bill that I do not support. I staunchly oppose the more than $10 billion authorized for ballistic missile programs plagued by massive cost overruns and consistent failures in testing. I also oppose other wasteful programs like the $4.2 billion included for the F/A-22 Raptor, a fighter aircraft best known for its technical difficulties, questionable utility, and unprecedented price-tag of between $200 to $300 million per plane. I find it most disturbing that the bill also allows continued research for the development of low-yield nuclear weapons for deployment in combat and directs $36 million to research the feasibility of an earth-penetrating nuclear weapon that existing research shows is more likely to spread contamination than destroy its target. The Bush Administration's quest for usable nuclear weapons contravenes the basic principle of nuclear deterrence and threatens to undermine decades of U.S. leadership non-proliferation efforts. Together with the doctrine of pre-emption and the President's policy endorsing the use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states, the effort sends the wrong message at a time when we are trying to get the international community to help us challenge proliferation in North Korea and Iran.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, George Will wrote a column recently about the administration's lack of accountability. He pointed out that no one was held accountable for the administration's false claim that Iraq attempted to obtain uranium from Niger or misleading claims about Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction. He correctly concluded failures are multiplying because of choices for which no one seems accountable. We are about to repeat this mistake once again. We all agree that the abuse and torture of Iraqi detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison is completely unacceptable. Congress has rightly condemned this illegal and inhumane conduct; but this House must take the next step, and fully investigate these terrible episodes. We must determine how many individuals were involved and how far up the chain of command this extends. We also must find out whether this type of abuse has occurred elsewhere, inside or outside of Iraq. We need to review the role of independent contractors; what role they played, to whom were they accountable. If we do not insist on holding the executive branch accountable, we are creating exactly the same situation George Will described, ``an administration where failures go unpunished and officials need not worry about the consequences of their conduct.'' This motion to recommit would express the sense of the House of Representatives that a select committee of the House should immediately be established to investigate the treatment of detainees held by the administration in connection with the global war on terrorism. A select committee is necessary because this House has ignored its constitutional responsibility for holding the administration accountable. Time and time again the House majority has demonstrated that it has no interest in performing any serious oversight of this administration. The Republican majority has refused to investigate the alleged White House's outing of CIA agency's Valerie Plame, which might have jeopardized our national security. The majority has declined to investigate allegations that administration officials threatened to fire the Health and Human Services chief actuary if he disclosed unfavorable cost projections for the Medicare prescription drug benefit to Congress. Now the House majority wants to do as little oversight as possible when it comes to abuse of detainees. One Republican leader objected to ``jerking those battle field commanders out of Iraq for hearings'' even when these same commanders are on the other side of the Capitol testifying before the Senate. Another suggested the ``congressional investigations would inflame hatred of the U.S. by providing fodder and soundbites for our enemies.'' Our enemies are already gleeful over the tarnishing of our credibility all around the world as champions of democracy and human rights. On the floor yesterday we were told that public hearings and some closed meetings amount to a ``massive investigation.'' Well, they seem to think this is all that they need to do; but they have not even brought General Taguba before them. They have not even looked at the issue of the civilian contractors. The majority seems to think that it is unpatriotic to ask tough questions and demand answers. What do they propose? They propose that the administration investigate itself. Well, this is an administration that does not even acknowledge mistakes, let alone accept responsibility to correct them. It has never found the person responsible in the White House for outing Valerie Plame. We have never heard any action taken about General William G. Boykin, the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for intelligence who made the egregious anti-Muslim statement that this is a Christian holy war against Muslims. It has never responded to Richard Clark's revelations about what he said about our preparedness for September 12 except to make an all-out assault on his character. The administration has never told us who told them to write the Iraq- Niger uranium deal in the State of the Union address which was based on bogus information that the CIA told them was bogus. They have never fired anybody for any of these mistakes. Well, I do not believe it is our constitutional responsibility to let the administration investigate itself. We have a fundamental responsibility to investigate this issue and to assert oversight over the military campaign in Iraq and the global war on terror. Mr. Speaker, oversight is not unpatriotic. Oversight is our constitutional duty. Now, I know there are different committees of the House that have different jurisdictions on this matter. Let us bring them all together in one select committee. But let us be sure we do the job of oversight. I ask for support for this motion to recommit.

Mr. WAXMAN. I am, Mr. Speaker, in its current form.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

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

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Have we heard from General Taguba who prepared the report?

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, my point is that what we are hearing from the Republican leadership in this House over and over again is, We will trust the administration to investigate themselves. We heard that when it came to the outing of the CIA agent, endangering our national security, from somebody at the White House who leaked the information. We have heard it when it came from the Medicare estimates being withheld from the Congress. And we are hearing it now on this issue of how Iraqi prisoners were treated. I think we have more of a responsibility than just to say we trust this administration because, after all, we have a war going on. I would hope the House of Representatives could chew gum and walk at the same time, and that means support our troops, but also support America's standing in the world by doing our own investigation and hearing from other people than the Secretary of Defense in public meetings and in private meetings not tell us much of anything because they are still investigating it. My argument to Members is, I will support anything that says we want to do something about the abuse, but we are not doing something about the abuse unless we exercise our oversight responsibilities and hold public hearings.

Mr. WAXMAN. I yield to the gentleman from California for an answer to that one question.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, we have had several gentlemen on the other side of the aisle take a great deal of time attacking the idea that they should hold public hearings. They act as if they held a public oversight hearing, we could not support our troops in the war. Let me say, having private briefings and having classified meetings is not enough when our country's credibility and our reputation for human rights and democracy has been tarnished all around the world and our troops are in greater danger because of it. We need to know the facts. We have heard people say a couple of times, seven bad apples. We do not know if it is only seven bad apples. I hope that is true. But we do not know how far up the chain of command some of these ideas were put forward in terms of how to treat the detainment of Iraqi prisoners. The gentleman's Committee on Armed Services has had one public hearing with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary of Defense. What about others to testify? I attended the classified briefing with Secretary Rumsfeld and other military people yesterday. I do not think I am violating any rules to tell Members that when the question of the Abu Ghraib prisoners came up, the Secretary said, We will find out the answers when we find out the answers. That is not a direct quote, but that is pretty much what I got out of that meeting. I think we need to do more, and the best example of somebody doing more in a responsible way is Senator Warner as the chairman of the committee on the other side of this building who has held hearings. Have we had any hearings for the public to hear on the House side? Have we heard from General Taguba in a public hearing?

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I agree that the appalling abuse and torture of Iraqi detainees by U.S. military personnel at the Abu Ghraib Prison is completely unacceptable. Congress should condemn this illegal and inhumane misconduct in the strongest possible terms. But condemnation alone is not enough. Congress also has the responsibility to fully investigate this terrible episode. Unfortunately, this amendment ignores the constitutional role of Congress to provide oversight over the activities of the administration and military. Without a thorough congressional investigation, the amendment simply assumes that only a handful of individuals were involved in the abuse. Despite General Taguba's conclusion that civilian contractors were either directly or indirectly responsible for the abuse, this amendment is silent on the role of private contractors in interrogating and abusing Iraqis at Abu Ghraib. I do not understand how the House of Representatives can express its sense of the facts when it has made no meaningful effort to determine what the facts are. This amendment fails to acknowledge that Congress has a fundamental responsibility to investigate the allegations and to conduct oversight over the military campaign in Iraq. We cannot, as this amendment assumes, ignore our responsibility and rely on the administration to oversee itself. This amendment should call for House investigations into the abuse at Abu Ghraib. The Committee on Government Reform, for example, should examine the role of private contractors in interrogations and prisoner abuse. Congress should be asking whether it is appropriate for the Defense Department to turn to private contractors to assist in the interrogation of prisoners. We should also determine what sanctions apply when private contractors operating in Iraq engage in outrageous abuse. Time and time again the majority has demonstrated that it has no interest in performing any serious oversight of this administration. The majority has refused to investigate the alleged White House's outing of a CIA agent, Valerie Plame. The majority has declined to investigate allegations that administration officials threatened to fire the Health and Human Services chief actuary if he disclosed unfavorable cost projections for the Medicare prescription drug benefit in his presentation to Congress. Now, the House majority wants to do as little oversight as possible when it comes to the abuse of detainees. One Republican leader objected to ``jerking these battlefield commanders'' out of Iraq for hearings. Another suggested that congressional investigations would inflame hatred of the U.S. ``by providing fodder and sound bites for our enemies.'' The majority seems to think it is unpatriotic to ask tough questions and demand answers. Mr. Chairman, oversight is not unpatriotic. Oversight is our constitutional duty. Congress must not abdicate its responsibility for holding the administration accountable. We owe it to the Iraqi people, we owe it to the American people and especially to the U.S. troops that have served with honor to learn the whole story and to take steps to ensure that this kind of abuse never again occurs.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the audience here today. Are we better off now than when President Bush took office? When you look at health care it certainly does not look like it. Since President Bush took office an additional 3.8 million Americans are uninsured, and for Americans lucky enough to have health insurance, their premiums have increased by almost 50 percent since President Bush took office. In fact, total family premiums have risen more than $2,700 in 4 years, a rate four times as fast as workers' salaries. This is basically a tax increase on the middle class. It is hard to be healthy when you have to choose between paying rent and going to the doctor. This is a real crisis. It has real consequence. Eighteen thousand people die prematurely each year because they do not have health insurance. And how do the administration and the Republicans running the Congress respond? With special interest proposals like tort reform, health savings account and association health plans. These proposals will not lower health care costs. We are not better off in these last 4 years.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, today we are debating a bill that claims to improve Federal regulations, reduce red tape and paperwork. Unfortunately, the substance and the timing of this bill make it clear that we are engaged not in public policy but in public relations. This bill is part of the congressional Republicans' Hire Our Workers plan, also called the HOW plan. This is a public relations strategy designed to make the public think that Republicans in Congress have a plan to increase jobs and revive the economy, but in reality the plan is all show and no substance. My Republican colleagues are going to spend a lot of time today talking about their opposition to paperwork, but here is what they will not tell us. The Bush administration and the Republican Congress have presided over record increases in paperwork. President Bush consistently rails against paperwork. He urged paperwork reductions as a Presidential candidate, as President-elect, in every year of his administration, and on at least seven separate occasions thus far this year. Just 2 months ago, President Bush said: ``We need to stop harassing small business owners and entrepreneurs with endless amounts of regulation and paperwork.'' So how do his policies match up? Last year Americans spent 700 million more hours filling out government forms than they did during the last year of the Clinton administration. This was not an accident, and it was not the product of an out-of-control bureaucracy. Most of the increase came from legislation supported by the administration and passed by the Republican majority in the Congress. In fact, the major culprits are the tax bills that President Bush promoted and Congress passed. The administration and the Republican leadership are putting this bill before the Congress so they proclaim they are doing something about governmental red tape. They are doing something. They are increasing record levels of the amount of paperwork that we have to deal with. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) and I released a reported today that documents how paperwork has increased under the Bush administration, and I am going to insert this report with my comments today. What is happening on paperwork is just like what has happened on so many other issues. The President says he is a fiscal conservative, but he has driven our Nation deep into debt. The President says he is behind education, he is the Education President, but he will not fund the No Child Left Behind Act. And with this bill we see that when the President says he will cut paperwork, what actually happens is that he increases paperwork. This public relations campaign on paperwork is especially distressing because there are real regulatory problems this Congress is ignoring. These include the increased politicization of science and the undue influence of special interests. But unless we adopt the amendment that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) and I will be offering, this bill will do nothing to address these fundamental problems. This legislation will not improve the economy, reduce paperwork, or enhance the well-being of this country. It will only make it harder for agencies to carry out their mandates to protect public health, the environment, and other values. This Congress should be taking real action to address real problems. I urge my colleagues to vote for our amendment when we offer it later in the debate. House of Representatives, Committee on Government Reform--Minority Staff, Special Investigations Division, Revised May 2004 Government Paperwork Burdens Have Increased Substantially Under the Bush Administration (Prepared for Representative John F. Tierney, Representative Henry A. Waxman) Executive Summary President Bush has made reducing the burdens of completing government paperwork a key item in his economic agenda. In speech after speech, he emphasizes that ``we must reduce unnecessary government regulation and red tape so businesses can focus on consumers and customers, not paperwork.'' Contrary to the President's rhetoric, however, total government paperwork has increased substantially under the Bush Administration to an estimated 8.1 billion hours in fiscal year 2003. Last year, Americans spent over 700 million more hours filing out government paperwork than in the last year of the Clinton Administration. The largest annual increase in paperwork burden ever measured occurred under the Bush Administration in fiscal year 2002. Government paperwork increased again in fiscal year 2003. In its most recent data on paperwork burdens, the Bush Administration relies on ``adjustments'' to show a nominal reduction in the federal paperwork burden in fiscal year 2003. However, adjustments in agency paperwork estimates do not necessarily reflect any actual reduction in the number of hours that Americans spend filling out paperwork. Focusing on the real impacts on Americans, GAO reports that ``[d]uring fiscal year 2003, the total paperwork burden, exclusive of adjustments, increased again by about 72 million burden hours.'' Statutory changes promoted by President Bush and enacted by Congress, particularly to the tax code, are among the largest sources of the increased paperwork burden. The Administration is also pursuing new regulatory changes that will impose additional paperwork burdens on Americans, including increased paperwork requirements for low-income families. I. President Bush's Promises To Reduce Paperwork President George W. Bush has frequently criticized the amount of ``paperwork'' required by the federal government. From the very outset of his campaign for the presidency, President Bush emphasized his commitment to reduce government paperwork. In an address in Los Angeles in September 1999, for example, President Bush said: ``The only thing we know for sure is that federal money comes with a lot of regulations and paperwork. By one estimate, this consumes about 50 million hours each year--the equivalent of 25,000 full-time employees just to process the forms. . . . New layers of federal mandates and procedures have been added to the old until their original purpose is long forgotten. It is a sad story of high hopes, how achievement, grand plans, and unmet goals. My administration will do things differently.'' Since being elected, President Bush has continued to promise to reduce government paperwork burdens. He argues that paperwork ``stifle[s] innovation and the entrepreneurial spirit,'' and he has said that ``we must reduce unnecessary government regulation and red tape so businesses can focus on consumers and customers, not paperwork.'' In a speech last December, President Bush stated: ``And a lot of times government has a tendency to over- regulate, which is a non-productive cost to these small business owners who would rather be employing people and making it easier for somebody to find work, than filling out reams of paperwork that probably doesn't get read anyway.'' President Bush has repeatedly stated his commitment to reducing federal paperwork requirements and he made doing so a key element of his ``Six-Point Plan for the Economy.'' In September 2003, President Bush stated: ``We need to continue to work for regulatory relief on small and large businesses, so that instead of filing needless paperwork, you're working to make your work force more productive and to meet the needs of your customers.'' In November 2003, he stated: ``We've got to cut useless government regulations. We need to do it at the federal level. . . . We need to make sure our entrepreneurs are focused on job creation, not filling out needless paperwork.'' In March 2004, President Bush reiterated these points: I bet you spend a lot of time filling out paperwork. I bet not much of your paperwork is ever read. The government needs to let you focus on your business, on developing goods and services. It needs to let you focus on hiring people, rather than spending hours filling out paperwork. In order for us to keep jobs here at home and expand the job base, we need better regulatory policy at the federal, state, and local level. Just over a month ago, President Bush said: ``We need to stop harassing small business owners and entrepreneurs with endless amounts of regulation and paperwork.'' President Bush has also touted actions he has taken to reduce paperwork. In May 2003, he highlighted the establishment of a task force on reducing paperwork: To enhance economic security for working people throughout the economy we must reduce the burden of regulation and litigation on small businesses as well. Employers don't want to spend their time and resources filling out forms or fighting junk lawsuits. They want to be out on the shop floor or behind the cash register creating profits and jobs. And that is why this administration has launched a task force to find ways to reduce paperwork and small-business owners in America. We must enact regulatory and lawsuit reforms so that our business owners can do what they do best: create jobs. In June 2003, President Bush took credit for an executive order that purported to reduce paperwork burdens, stating: ``I'm concerned and mindful about what paperwork and regulations do to small businesses. So I put down an executive order that requires all federal regulatory agencies to minimize the burden on our small businesses.'' II. Paperwork increase under the Bush Administration There is a large gap between President Bush's rhetoric about the need for paperwork reduction and the performance of his Administration. According to data from the General Accounting Office and the Office of Management and Budget, the burden of government paperwork on American citizens has actually increased substantially under the Bush Administration. At the same time as President Bush has been promising to reduce paperwork burdens, Americans are actually spending more time doing paperwork than ever before. A. The Requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act The primary tool for measuring and controlling paperwork requirements imposed by federal law and regulations is the Paperwork Reduction Act. Collecting information is essential for the government to collect taxes, administer programs, and enforce laws. The Paperwork Reduction Act aims to make these information collections as efficient as possible. It requires agencies to estimate the time it will take to fill out a form or otherwise provide information to the government, obtain approvals of larger information collection requests from the Office of Management and Budget, and reduce the overall hours of paperwork by a given percent each year. Each agency is required to submit a report each year providing the number of paperwork burden hours that the agency imposed during the previous year. The annual PRA reports from each federal agency provide a picture of the total hours of paperwork required by the federal government. For the past several years, GAO has analyzed these reports annually at Congress' request. This report relies on the analyses provided by GAO, as well as data provided to Congress from the Office of Management and Budget. B. Total Paperwork Burdens The annual paperwork burden today is over 700 million burden hours higher than it was when President Bush took office. In fiscal year 2000, the annual paperwork burden imposed by the federal government was measured at about 7.4 billion hours. By the end of fiscal year 2003, the annual paperwork burden stood at 8.1 billion burden hours. This is an increase of nearly 10%. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) accounts for more paperwork than any other federal agency, with 81% of the total paperwork hours. In contrast, EPA currently accounts for only 1.8% of federal paperwork burden, and the Department of Labor, including OSHA, accounts for only 2.0% of federal paperwork burden. C. A Record Increase in Paperwork Burdens in Fiscal Year 2002 The first two years of the Bush Administration saw large increases in the number of hours of paperwork burden. In fiscal year 2001, the federal government required 7.6 billion hours of paperwork, an increase of 290 million hours from the year before. In fiscal year 2002, the increase in the paperwork burden was approximately 570 million hours. Almost 300 million hours of this increase was due to program changes that added or reinstated paperwork obligations. This was the largest increase in paperwork since the Paperwork Reduction Act was amended in 1995. The total paperwork burden for fiscal year 2002 was 8.2 billion hours. D. Increases in Paperwork Burdens in Fiscal Year 2003 This year, the Administration is reporting a small decline in the overall number of reported paperwork burden hours from last year's record high of 8.2 billion hours to 8.1 billion hours. According to the General Accounting Office, however, ``[t]his year, the story, while on the surface may appear encouraging, is not.'' GAO's analysis reveals that the purported drop in government paperwork is entirely due to ``adjustments'' that ``are not the result of direct federal government action but rather are caused by factors such as . . . agency reestimates of the burden associated with a collection of information.'' GAO concludes that ``[d]uring fiscal year 2003 the total paperwork burden, exclusive of adjustments, increased again by about 72 million burden hours.'' E. Causes of the Paperwork Increases Much of the increases in paperwork burden since fiscal year 2000 has been driven by statutory changes proposed by the Administration and passed by Congress. The largest sources of statutory increases in paperwork have been the recent tax law changes, which have introduced substantial additional complexity and burden for individuals and small businesses in filling out their tax forms. For example, Americans spent an additional 330 million hours filling out tax paperwork in fiscal year 2002, with the implementation of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 and other IRS regulations. Similarly, the IRS reports that its implementation of the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 ``generated an estimated 113.9 million additional hours of burden.'' One example of the increased paperwork is the changes to the taxation of capital gains in the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003. To implement these provisions, the IRS made numerous changes to Form 1040, Form 1040A, and associated schedules. Among other changes, the IRS added 13 extra lines to Schedule D, which taxpayers must file to report their capital gains and losses. Overall, just this portion of the paperwork changes driven by the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 increased the paperwork burden for individual taxpayers by over 16 million hours in fiscal year 2003. For families with modest incomes and few capital gains, the increased paperwork burdens significantly offset any benefit from the capital gains tax reductions. The paperwork increases have also hit small businesses. Together the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 and the 2000 Community Renewal Act added complexity to Form 1120S and its associated schedules. These forms are used by S corporations, which are often small businesses or the self-employed. Due to these added complexities, S corporation filers spent almost 12 million additional hours filling out tax forms in fiscal year 2003. F. Increases in Future Paperwork Burdens Additional paperwork increases are likely in fiscal year 2004 and future years under policies being pursued by the Bush Administration. For example, the Bush Administration will require labor unions to report extensive new financial information starting in fiscal year 2004. Under the new rule, all unions with annual receipts of at least $250,000 will be required to report almost all of their receipts and disbursements. It is estimated that roughly 4,500 labor organizations will have to comply with this requirement, only 65 of which are large international unions. One union, the Airline Pilots Association, estimates that the required reports will produce 15,863 pages, or about five-and-a-half feet of paper, each year. Based on a survey of unions, the new reporting requirements were estimated to cost unions somewhere in the range of $700 million to $1.1 billion per year. The same report estimated that fullfilling the new reporting requirements would require on average, roughly 353 hours per union employee, per year. The Bush Administration is also currently testing new paperwork requirements for low- and moderate-income families to demonstrate their eligibility for the Child Tax Credit portion of the Earned Income Tax Credit. This is an important tax credit for workers in low wage jobs and the recently unemployed who have children to support. Under the pilot program that applies to 50,000 individuals, persons seeking the credit must supply proof from a third party that the child they are claiming under the Earned Income Tax Credit lived with them for more than six months in that year. The individual must produce official records meeting the proof requirements, an affidavit from a third party, signed under penalty of perjury, or a letter on official letterhead from a third party, such as a landlord or social service agency employee. The IRS estimates that this new requirement imposes an additional 40 minutes of paperwork burden for each person filling out these forms. III. Conclusion As a candidate, George Bush railed against government paperwork burdens and promised that ``[m]y administration will do things differently.'' As President, Mr. Bush continues to urge reductions in government paperwork burdens. But in practice, the Bush Administration has actually increased paperwork burdens. Today, Americans are filling out far more paperwork under the Bush Administration than ever before.

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

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

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