Henry Waxman

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. There is no transparency when this administration appoints people to a lead poisoning scientific committee and puts a person on who represents the industry point of view, comes right from the industry, and then comes in and recommends a level of lead that is harmful to kids. It is not transparency when references to global warming are taken out at the insistence of the White House, the EPA administrator is forced to drop it out of his or her analysis of overall problems. It is not transparency when we have Web sites that say to women, you should worry about having an abortion because it could lead to breast cancer when there is no scientific basis for it. What we have is continuous interference in scientific decisions by the political people in this administration. We need to respond to the concerns that have been raised by 20 Nobel laureates, by Science Magazine, Nature Magazine, New England Journal of Medicine, leading scientific organizations, including the American Academy For the Advancement of Science, by making sure that we have good scientific data, not politicized scientific data. We are calling for a bipartisan commission to examine this politicization of science that we are now seeing so frequently by this administration, so that we can stop it and let the policymakers make the decision based on good science. Our country is losing its edge as a leader in science because scientists do not want to work in an atmosphere where an administration wants to just do favors for the right-wing religious extremists who want to stop science that might offend their notions of what they think is appropriate. And they do not want to work for an administration in the scientific area where industry groups that reward this administration with campaign contributions are rewarded by having the science distorted to suit their needs. I ask for support for the amendment.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes of debate time. H.R. 2432, the bill that is before us today, is intended to improve the way that Federal agencies create and implement regulations, but in its current form this legislation will do nothing to address the most serious threat to the integrity of the regulatory process: political interference with science. Without good science for policymakers, we cannot make the best policy judgments. We as policymakers or the regulatory agencies need good science, science that has not been interfered with by politicians. That is why the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) and I are offering this amendment to establish an independent commission to investigate whether science is being politicized and to make recommendations to Congress to protect scientific integrity. This amendment responds to the concerns of the scientific community. Twenty Nobel Laureates, major scientific organizations, and leading scientific and medical journals have protested a pattern of political interference with science by the Bush administration. This pattern has involved gagging scientists, suppressing research, and rewriting reports to eliminate scientific answers that conflict with the administration's political or ideological agenda. It has also involved misleading the public and Congress on key scientific facts, manipulating performance measures for ideologically favored programs, and stacking advisory committees, scientific advisory committees stacked with people who will come up with the right political answer. The Bush administration's interference with science has undermined efforts to protect the public's health, safeguard the environment, and even provide accurate information about the war on terrorism. We have a report that we have prepared called ``Politics and Science in the Bush Administration,'' and it goes through a whole pattern of interference with scientific decisions. We have heard about the interference with scientific research at the National Institutes of Health. We have heard about suppression of information where the environmental scientist wanted to talk about the global warming issue, but their report was taken out of the overall category of information about environmental problems in this country. We know that this administration favors the kinds of programs that would talk about abstinence for sex for teenagers, and they do not want to really talk about some of the other programs that have a broader perspective, including family planning. But even in the last couple of days, we have another example where we even are seeing that accurate information that is needed for us to have about the war on terrorism is being stopped. The State Department did a report on patterns of global terrorism; and according to the report, terrorist attacks fell to a record low in 2003. At the press conference releasing the report, Deputy Secretary Armitage said: ``You will find in these pages clear evidence that we are prevailing in the fight.'' But this is a fabrication resulting from manipulation of the data. In fact, significant terrorist attacks reached a 20-year high in 2003. It is deplorable that this administration would manipulate data to make it seem like terrorism is less a threat than ever when, in reality, the very opposite is true. I ask my colleagues today to join me in supporting this amendment. It is supported by a wide range of groups, including the League of Conservation Voters, Planned Parenthood, and the Union of Concerned Scientists. Respect for evidence and the scientific process is not a partisan issue. I urge that we take the responsible step of supporting an independent bipartisan commission to investigate the politicization of science and restore scientific integrity across the Federal Government. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).

Mr. WAXMAN. Whatever the amendment provides. It does not make too much difference. It is the same report with the same substance outlining the political interference with science by the Bush administration.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, the August report was updated on November 13, 2003. They are practically identical reports.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that science has already been politicized by the Bush administration, and that is what our report has pointed out. This report was favorably received in the leading scientific journal Nature. It was cited dozens of times in scientific and medical literature, including the New England Journal of Medicine and Science. The issue that we pointed out is named the fifth most important story of 2003 by Discover magazine. When we point out how the Bush administration has politicized science, we are accused of being supporters of left-wing organizations and we should not politicize science. Let us get an independent, bipartisan commission to review whether science has been manipulated and distorted and otherwise subjected to political pressures by this administration.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat, my good friend from Long Beach and Orange, California, is absolutely incorrect. The hospitals do not have to ask this question of emergency care patients. We do not know what the emergency is when they come in, if it is a communicable disease that they are suffering from such as SARS. Hospitals do not ask this question. They give care to the patients.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation. Seldom has this House had before it a more ill-considered proposal. This legislation purely and simply attempts to turn our frontline medical care providers into Border Patrol police. Unlike what was just told us by the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), this is not their mission. They do not ask these questions now. It is not their professional responsibility. It is not the appropriate role for those committed to saving lives and protecting the health care of our communities. What does society gain by forcing undocumented aliens to forgo emergency care because, as a practical matter, that will be the result if they are asked these questions on their immigration status? What benefit does it make for a woman in labor not to come in for medical care because she is fearing that she will be deported? And what does society gain by discouraging people with contagious conditions, who may put us all at risk, from going in and getting the diagnosis and treatment they need? Do we want someone who might have SARS to be afraid to go in for treatment? We need to help our hospitals and emergency systems have the resources to treat all people who are eligible for those services. What we do not need to do is to stretch their resources further on a mission that is not theirs to fill. This is not an appropriate action for Americans or appropriate policy on health care for those in need. That is why all of the hospitals oppose this legislation. I urge that we oppose this bill. May 7, 2004. Dear Member of Congress: We understand that the House of Representatives is expected to soon consider legislation (H.R. 3722) proposed by Representative Rohrabacher (R-CA). The undersigned organizations, representing America's hospitals and health systems, health care providers, and safety net systems, are united in our opposition to H.R. 3722, the ``Undocumented Alien Emergency Medical Assistance Amendments of 2004,'' and urge you to oppose this legislation. We believe it will severely undermine Section 1011 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) and create unnecessary barriers to life saving treatments at hospitals nationwide. After months of careful deliberation by the Medicare conferees, the Congress and Administration included essential resources for hospitals providing life saving emergency are to undocumented aliens. The undersigned organizations deeply appreciated the inclusion of Section 1011 in MMA. We are deeply concerned that H.R. 3722 would weaken Section 1011 by imposing new burdensome requirements on hospitals in order to receive any of the resources from Section 1011. In addition, H.R. 3722 would virtually ensure that illegal immigrants will avoid getting the appropriate and timely life saving health care they need, when they need it. H.R. 3722 could pose a significant public health threat for entire communities because the fear of deportation would inevitably preclude undocumented immigrants from seeking care for communicable disease until these individuals are extremely ill. Hospitals provide care to anyone who walks through their doors,--regardless of race, ethnicity or citizenship status,--twenty-four hours each day, seven days a week. That is the role of community hospitals. Rep. Rohrabacher's legislation, however, seeks to create a new role for hospitals in their communities--that of border patrol agents. In order to qualify for Section 1011 funding, the Rohrabacher legislation would require that hospitals demand and upload personal data--including such ``identifiers'' as fingerprints and digital photographs--on undocumented aliens to an electronic database set up by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for deportation purposes. Furthermore, the bill requires hospitals to retain original documents and data for a period of at least 5 years, thus imposing additional paperwork on an already overwhelmed system. We do not believe this is in the best interest of the patients we serve and the nurses and physicians that provide emergency care. Today's health care delivery system in very fast-paced and in an emergency situation, the urgency of providing life-saving care takes precedence over anything else. Requiring hospitals to collect these data diverts us from doing our job of caring for patients. Hospitals do not have the expertise or the resources to interrogate and investigate patients in the pressured environment of an emergency. We respectfully ask that you oppose this legislation should it come up for a vote. Sincerely, Federation of American Hospitals. American Hospital Association. National Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems. Association of American Medical Colleges. Catholic Health Association of the United States. National Association of Children's Hospitals. VHA Inc.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the American Lung Association on the occasion of its 100th year anniversary. Over the past century, the American Lung Association has played a vital role in protecting public health and shaping public policy in this country and worldwide. We all live in a safer and healthier world thanks to the diligent efforts of the American Lung Association and its many staff and volunteers. The American Lung Association developed the Nation's very first public health campaign, and it has been on the forefront of public health ever since. I have had the great privilege of working closely with representatives of the American Lung Association for more than 20 years, and I have seen first hand their role in shaping national policy to improve public health. As the former chair of the Health and Environment Subcommittee, I frequently heard testimony from American Lung Association witnesses who provided important information regarding a wide range of health issues--ranging from the devastating health effects of tobacco to the importance of curbing asthma to the fight for clean air. For more than 40 years, the American Lung Association has been the leader in the battle against tobacco-related lung disease. The association played a critical role in the shaping of the 1990s settlement between the tobacco industry and the states. When the industry proposed a weak settlement with state attorneys general in 1997, the American Lung Association stepped forward to oppose granting immunity to the tobacco companies. That courageous stand made way for the development of an improved settlement that had a real effect on tobacco control efforts. The American Lung Association has brought an important public health perspective to the fight against air pollution. In the 1990s, the association led the battle for tougher ozone and particulate standards under the Clean Air Act. And more recently, over the past 3 years, the American Lung Association has focused attention on challenging EPA plans to weaken Clean Air Act requirements. These efforts to preserve and strengthen the Clean Air Act have enabled all Americans to breathe more freely. From tobacco control to air pollution prevention to asthma research to continuing efforts to eradicate tuberculosis, the American Lung Association has made key contributions to this country. It is my pleasure to salute the association on its anniversary and ask my colleagues to join with me. We all owe the association a debt of gratitude for its work, and I look forward to seeing what it can achieve in the century to come.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H. Res. 627. We could have passed a resolution with unanimous support today. American abuses of Iraqi detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison are deplorable. They are inhumane. They are immoral. They are inimical to everything America stands for. We universally condemn them. And there is also unanimous support that every perpetrator of these crimes must be punished, that their superiors must be held accountable, and that our government must ensure that such atrocities never happen again. This resolution would not be on the floor today, and our international standing would not be in tatters, if the administration had acted differently. The administration's instinct to ignore bad news and suppress evidence of mistakes is fundamentally wrong. It is telling that just a few days ago, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and General Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that they hadn't even read Major General Taguba's March 9 damning report on the abuses. This administration has failed the military, the American people, the Iraqi people, and the international community. A congressional investigation is critical to get to the bottom of this scandal and to attempt to salvage what is left of our standing in the world. That is why H. Res. 627 is so disappointing. We were presented with a resolution that ``urges'' the Secretary of the Army to investigate abuses at Abu Ghraib prison and ``reaffirms the need for Congress to be frequently updated.'' This resolution asks the Bush administration to investigate itself. Yet this is an administration that does not even acknowledge mistakes, let alone accept responsibility to correct them. It has never found the person responsible for leaking the identity of a covert CIA agent to the press. It took no action against Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin, deputy under secretary of defense for intelligence and war-fighting, for his egregious anti-Muslim statements. It responded to Richard Clarke's revelations with an all-out assault on his character and reputation. To this day, the administration has not accounted for its use of bad intelligence to justify the war in Iraq, including the fabricated claims that Iraq attempted to obtain uranium from Niger. In effect, this resolution abdicates Congress' institutional oversight responsibilities. This is a profound mistake. Just think how different our situation would be today if Congress had not relinquished its constitutional obligation to investigate the administration's many Iraq policy failures. The resolution neatly concludes--without evidence--that only ``a handful of individuals'' are involved in prisoner abuse. But none of us knows how many individuals were involved or how high up the chain of command they go. This resolution also fails to mention the two private companies, CACI International and Titan Corporation, which have contract employees at Abu Ghraib prison. According to accused soldiers, civilian contractors conducted interrogations and ``urged military police . . . to take steps to make prisoners more responsive to questioning.'' One of the soldiers has claimed that civilian contractors were involved in an interrogation that left a prisoner dead. Military investigators have said that a CACI instructor was fired for allowing or instructing military police to ``facilitate interrogations by setting [unauthorized] conditions.'' And in his damning report, Major General Antonio Taguba concluded that two CACI employees were among those ``either directly or indirectly responsible for the abuse at Abu Ghraib.'' Yet the resolution simply ignores these facts and the serious implications they raise. Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership could have achieved a unanimous vote in a constructive, bipartisan effort if it had chosen to. But instead it decided to put before the House a resolution asking this administration to hold itself accountable. That is simply the wrong approach. Congress must accept its constitutional duties and conduct a thorough investigation. And we must work as hard as we can to try to begin to repair the damage that has been done.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, today we commemorate the 89th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide, a painful chapter in world history when the international community stood silent as Armenian villages were purged and systematically destroyed. Between the years of 1915 and 1923, close to one and half million Armenians were killed while hundreds of thousands of others were mercilessly deported, exiled, and uprooted from their homes. Although the atrocities were documented by the United States and others, the information was never acted upon. Sadly, even today, the issue remains buried. After 89 years, the victims and their descendants deserve better. No longer should their suffering go unnoticed or unmourned. Recognition of the Armenian Genocide is long overdue. It is time for the United States to make a concerted effort to overcome the historical denial that genocide took place, and put an end to the harmful isolation of Armenia that tragically continues. We must identify ways to facilitate the lifting of the blockade against Armenia and encourage a peaceful resolution of the conflict in Nagorno-Karabagh. We must help Armenia continue to flourish as a burgeoning democracy, extend Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) status to strengthen her economy, and stand ready to help maintain her military strength. Let us resolve ourselves to ensure that the coming year will be one that brings full recognition of the genocide that took place, and peace to the region and the memory of those who perished.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker. I rise in honor of Israel Independence Day, Yom Ha'atzmaut, to celebrate the strength of the U.S.-Israel relationship and pay tribute to the people of Israel whose vibrant democracy and brave military stand beside us on the front lines of the war against terrorism. In the fifty-six years since the establishment of the State of Israel, the United States has worked with Israel to create a wide array of foundations and forums for bilateral cooperation on issues ranging from agriculture, science, energy, and the environment, to the development of technology for military and homeland security needs. We have also worked hard to build a robust economic relationship. Despite the small size of Israel's population, Israel's GNP is now higher than that of most of its neighbors combined. This is a testament to the openness of the Israeli economy and its high volume of trade with the United States. Perhaps most fundamental, however, is our work together to advance peace and security in the region. While Israeli peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan are enduring cornerstones of this effort, the refusal of the Palestinian leadership to embrace a peaceful and democratic future remains a painful challenge. Each year, on the Israeli calendar, the celebration of Yom Ha'atzmaut comes on the heels of Yom Ha'zikaron, Israel's Memorial Day, when the nation expresses its eternal debt and gratitude to the soldiers who gave their lives for the achievement of the country's independence and its continued existence. Tragically, over the past three years of Palestinian terrorism, hundreds of Israeli civilians have joined those fallen heroes on front lines that now encompass the doorstep of its cafes, buses, and supermarkets. Although the Palestinians have attempted to justify their hatred as a reaction to Israel's settlement policy or its acts of self defense, the true source of violence is the Palestinian leadership's desire to annihilate the Jewish State even if it sacrifices the dream of Palestinian statehood. That is why even as the United States remains an honest broker in the effort to reach a final peace settlement, as a nation fighting the threat of terrorism ourselves we must continue to act in solidarity with Israel and on behalf of its right to exist as a secure, democratic, and Jewish state for generations to come.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate Yom HaShoah, Holocaust Martyrs' and Heroes' Remembrance Day, which memorializes the six million Jews murdered during World War II. I join my colleagues in mourning the innocent lives and vibrant communities destroyed by Nazis while the world shamefully stood by, and call upon all of us to redouble our efforts to combat resurgent anti- Semitism and intolerance around the world. As we observe the anniversary of the Warsaw ghetto uprising, when a brave cadre of fighters battled a Nazi siege to liquidate the community's last remaining Jews, we must also pay tribute to survivors who continue today to battle the traumatic horrors of their past. I would like to take this opportunity to recognize Cafe Europa, a social service and Holocaust survivors advocacy group of Jewish Family Services of Los Angeles, which marked its 16th anniversary this week in a Yom HaShoah ceremony at Mount Sinai Memorial Park in Hollywood Hills. Cafe Europa, like other groups across the country, has played a key role in making sure that Holocaust survivors have the social support and resources they need to overcome their haunting suffering and live out their years in peace. We all have a responsibility to make sure the atrocities they witnessed are not forgotten and never again repeated. While we have come very far in combating Holocaust denial and racial hatred against Jews, new and difficult challenges unfortunately remain ahead. There is a terrible climate of anti-Semitism growing worldwide. In European and Arab countries, there has been a dramatic rise of anti- Semitism and Holocaust denial fomenting violent attacks against Jews and exacerbating tensions in the Middle East. It is incumbent upon the United States to speak out, raise awareness, and call for action. While the State Department annual country reports on human rights and religious freedom have attempted to track anti-Semitism the results have been woefully inadequate. For example, the 2003 State Department Country Report on the United Arab Emirates mistakenly characterizes the closure of the Zayed Centre for Coordination and Follow-up as a form of censorship instead of commending the UAE government for taking action to shut down an institution widely criticized for promoting vehemently anti-Semitic symposia, speakers, and materials. At a time when blood libels, canards like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and other anti-Semitic conspiracy theories are being broadcast on Arabic television channels, the United States must be more vigilant in its stance on this issue. We cannot allow governments afraid or unwilling to confront the blight of anti-Semitism to turn a blind eye and permit defamation to be accepted as freedom of speech. Today, we must resound the words ``never again'' to the community of nations whose failure to take action against hatred and incitement against Jews quickly turned to devastation and murder a mere half century ago.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the American Legacy Foundation on its fifth year of saving lives. The Foundation was established through the settlement agreement between the tobacco industry and state attorneys general. Five years ago, we did not know whether this unique public education and research would bear fruit. It is now clear that the Legacy Foundation has exceeded all of our expectations. While even getting one child, teenager, or adult to quit smoking is a victory in itself, programs and research supported by the Legacy Foundation have affected thousands of young lives. The Foundation's innovative ``truth'' campaign is particularly impressive. This successful campaign has been cited by academic studies and credited to have helped reduce smoking rates among 8th'', 10th, and 12th graders. Programs such as ``Circle of Friends,'' ``Great Start,'' and ``Priority Populations'' are also making a large impact. There is still so much more to do. Tobacco still causes more death than alcohol, AIDS, car accidents, illegal drugs, murder and suicides combined. Lung cancer still kills more women than breast and cervical cancer combined. While this Congress and this Administration has largely ignored the dangers of tobacco use, millions of teenagers have become addicted, many of whom will die from entirely preventable diseases. Unfortunately, at this pivotal time, funding for the American Legacy Foundation is dropping precipitously. It is imperative that a way be found to sustain the Legacy Foundation and its important work.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of this resolution. However, it is regrettable that this resolution even needs to be offered. In my opinion, it should be a well-settled principle that Federal civilian employees will receive the same annual pay raise as military personnel. Unfortunately, we are faced with an administration that does not appreciate the importance of the Federal workforce. We have seen countless examples of Federal employees coming under attack from this administration. Over the past 2 years, 800,000 civilian employees at the Departments of Homeland Security and Defense have seen the revocation of their collective bargaining rights, due process rights and appeal rights. We have seen an ideologically driven campaign to privatize Federal jobs. This administration wants to use arbitrary numerical goals for converting Federal jobs; and when there are competitions between Federal employees and the private sector, the administration wants employees to compete with one arm tied behind their backs. Now we see the continuation of efforts to shortchange Federal employees. In this year's budget, the President has proposed giving civilian employees a 1.5 percent raise, less than half, less than half the raise that military personnel will receive. That is unfair to the hard-working Federal workers who make personal and financial sacrifices to serve their country. Much has been made of the enormous sacrifices of the military personnel serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. These brave men and women deserve our deepest gratitude. However, we should not forget that civilian employees at the Defense Department and other agencies are playing an instrumental role in supporting both the war effort abroad and the war on terrorism at home. Ironically, while the administration cannot seem to find enough money to give raises to civilian employees, it has no problem awarding financial bonuses to its political appointees. In some agencies, the average bonus to political employees has exceeded $11,000. That is outrageous. Now, we have heard this is a matter of priorities. The priority for this administration is to give tax cuts to billionaires, not to adequately pay for civilian employees of the Federal Government. I am pleased to be part of a bipartisan coalition of Members who value the contributions of Federal civil servants and believe they should not be treated as second-class employees. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this resolution. It is the only fair thing to do to keep faith with those who are working for us and deserve a pay raise and should not be excluded because of priorities for billionaires getting tax cuts while our civilian employees do not get the parity that they deserve.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to concentrate on an area of this budget that could have devastating effects on Medicaid coverage and safety net institutions that serve the uninsured. This budget requires cuts of $2.2 billion in the Medicaid and S-CHIP programs, stripping away critically needed Federal funds from already beleaguered and underfunded State Medicaid programs that serve the poorest among us. We know States are in budgetary crisis. We know we would have millions more uninsured if we had not provided a temporary increase in the Federal matching rate for Medicaid. But instead of providing funds to extend this higher matching rate, there are no funds allocated for that; and it will expire. Instead, we are compounding the problem by requiring cuts in Federal funding for Medicaid and S-CHIP. Assuring that these cuts do not occur is not and should not be a partisan issue. I want to read from a letter Governor Schwarzenegger sent earlier this week to the entire California delegation. He said, ``I am writing to urge your opposition to proposed reductions in Medicaid funding that could significantly jeopardize support for services to low-income, underserved Californians. Given California's budget challenges, the rising number of uninsured and the financially precarious position of many of the State's safety net providers, California can ill-afford reductions in Federal Medicaid spending. ``I am particularly concerned by any proposals that would reduce the critical funding California uses to support its hospital safety net. Clearly, reductions of this magnitude will place tremendous stress on the State's already financially fragile health care safety net, compelling hospitals to cut back on emergency and trauma care throughout California and, quite possibly, put entire hospitals at risk of closure.'' Mr. Chairman, surely anyone concerned about the 43 million Americans who are already uninsured in this country must see the folly of adopting cuts in this budget which would add to that number and simultaneously cripple the safety net institutions which are their only source of care. This is reason enough to vote against this budget. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the full text of Governor Schwarzenegger's letter. March 22, 2004. Dear California Delegation Member: I am writing to urge your opposition to proposed reductions in Medicaid funding that could significantly jeopardize support for services to low-income, underserved Californians. Given California's budget challenges, the rising number of uninsured, and the financially precarious position of many of the state's safety net providers, California can ill afford reductions in federal Medicaid spending. California opposes reductions in Medicaid funding and changes in current policy that would erode federal support of the state's fragile health care delivery system. I am particularly concerned by any proposals that would reduce the critical funding California uses to support its hospital safety net. Cuts in Medicaid funding for intergovernmental transfers, for example, could put $900 million in federal funds to California per year at risk; Los Angeles County alone would lose $500 million in funding for its hospitals. Clearly, reductions of this magnitude will place tremendous stress on the state's already financially fragile health care safety net, compelling hospitals to cut back on emergency and trauma care throughout California and, quite possibly, put entire hospitals at risk of closure. I share Congress' commitment to further controlling Medicaid spending in California and eliminating waste, fraud and abuse in the program. Consistent with that commitment, I have proposed a comprehensive redesign of our state's Medicaid program to preserve health care coverage while managing costs in a more effective manner. Additionally we have a number of proposals to further the state's efforts to crack down on fraud and abuse in the program. These efforts will result in cost savings to both the State and federal governments. Moreover, California already operates one of the most cost- effective Medicaid programs in the country. The state's low per capita spending coupled with its low federal Medicaid matching rate combine to make the federal per capita contribution the lowest in the nation. As a result, California cannot afford reductions in federal Medicaid funding. Over 6.5 million Californians rely on the state's Medicaid program to access essential health care services. As the budget process moves forward, I urge you to oppose proposed cuts to Medicaid spending that will undermine the system of health care low-income Californians rely upon for their medical needs. I ask that you not cut funds for reimbursing states for their Medicaid costs or funds used by California to ensure that critical hospitals in the State are able to provide emergency room and trauma care. Sincerely, Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. As we near the 1-year anniversary of the commencement of hostilities in Iraq, now is an appropriate time to examine how we got into the war in Iraq in the first place. The resolution before us contains many ``whereas'' clauses about how brutally Saddam Hussein treated his own people. I agree with those clauses. But let us not fool ourselves about the reason the American people were told that we needed to launch a preemptive war against Iraq. Over and over again, President Bush and his senior advisers told us that we needed to go to war to protect America from weapons of mass destruction. Several months ago I asked my staff to prepare a comprehensive analysis of the statements made by the top administration officials most responsible for making the case for war. Yesterday, I released the results of this work in a report entitled ``Iraq on the Record.'' Members can find the report, and a searchable database of administration statements, at www.reform.house.gov/min. What we found was that the President, the Vice President, and other top administration officials repeatedly and systematically misled the public about the threats posed by Iraq. They made claims that Iraq posed an urgent threat; they exaggerated Iraq's nuclear capabilities; statements that overstated Iraq's chemical and biological weapons; and statements that misrepresented Iraq's relationship with al Qaeda. We judge whether a statement was misleading based on what intelligence officials knew at the time the statement was made, not what we know now. If Congress really wanted to show respect for the troops, it would enact legislation calling for an independent commission, a real independent commission to examine how the President and his top advisers made hundreds of misleading statements to the American public. The resolution before us is reminiscent of these statements. Vice President Cheney said: ``We do know with absolute certainty that he, Saddam Hussein, is using his procurement system to acquire the weapons he needs to build a nuclear weapon,'' when this resolution says the same thing so unequivocally, quote, ``the world has been made safer with the removal of Saddam Hussein.'' I hope that is true, but we do not know it yet. Ask the hundreds who have died since Saddam Hussein was captured. The purpose of this resolution is an attempt by the Republican leadership to divide us, not to unite us behind our troops. They are using the sacrifice of the lives of our young men and women for their own political gain. I will not vote for this resolution or against it. I will vote ``present'' as an act of disdain for those who want to play politics with the lives of Americans and the credibility of this great Nation as the world's leader.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) for yielding to me. I want to take 1 minute to say that the broadcasters have an interest in protecting the public's rights, but what are we doing about the concentration of power in the media? What are we doing about the lack of a fairness doctrine or equal time, especially at a time when we have the most important election with the political debate that ought to be honest, really fair and balanced, not just for some broadcaster to tell us it is fair and balanced when it is not? What are we doing about children's programs? Instead of dealing with those issues, we have a bill to increase the penalties for indecency on the airwaves while the FCC is already not enforcing the penalties they have at their disposal. I think we ought to recognize that if people feel they are doing something really important with this legislation, then I think it only opens the door to more government interference in free speech on the airwaves, and that it is somewhat hypocritical for the public to think we are doing something about the important issues in the broadcasting area when we are not even addressing, and the Republican leadership has stopped us from addressing, the concentration of the media in all these other matters. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I plan to vote no on the bill.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. The House is considering this bill, which would give personnel flexibilities to the General Accounting Office. These flexibilities will help GAO in the recruitment and retention of its employees which, in turn, will allow GAO to do a better job in serving the Members of the Congress. In general, I believe civil service reform ought to be done on a government-wide basis, not an agency-by-agency basis. A piecemeal approach creates a hodgepodge of personnel systems which limits the mobility of employees and increases the potential for unfair treatment. Nevertheless, Comptroller General David Walker has made a very strong case for why GAO should be granted the personnel flexibilities in this bill. On that basis, I support the bill. I also believe that GAO would be an appropriate place to experiment with these reforms before we consider them for other agencies. In developing this legislation, the Comptroller General consulted with GAO's employee representatives, gave guarantees to employees about their future pay, and worked with Members on both sides of the aisle in the Congress of the United States and in both the House and in the Senate. When the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Civil Service, and I expressed concerns about several provisions in the bill, the Comptroller General worked to find language that we could support. The end result is the bill that is before us today. It is a bipartisan bill. It has been improved by compromise, and it is supported by every member of our committee. For that reason, I would urge the Members of the House to accept the legislation as well. As other agencies approach Congress for personnel flexibilities in the future, I hope they will look to GAO's consensus-building approach as a model. I want to thank the Comptroller General, the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Tom Davis), and the gentlewoman from Virginia (Chairwoman Jo Ann Davis) for their cooperation and, of course, our ranking member, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Danny Davis). I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, we yield back the balance of our time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I, too, want to thank our colleague the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez) for introducing this resolution recognizing and honoring the life of Raul Julia. Mr. Speaker, Raul Julia was discovered by the actor Orson Bean, who inspired him to leave his native San Juan, Puerto Rico, and immigrate to the United States in 1964. Over the next three decades, Mr. Julia enjoyed a stellar career as one of our finest stars of stage and screen. His first love was always the stage, and he was one of the first Puerto Rican actors to make it big on Broadway. He was nominated for four Tony Awards, including for his performance as Mack the Knife in the Threepenny Opera. He also boasted an impressive resume of Shakespearean work, beginning with his first starring role, the title character in Titus Andronicus, with the New York Shakespeare Festival. It was once said of this daring actor that he was always outrageous in his acting choices. He is larger than life all the time when he is on stage. A wider audience grew to know him through his film work, an eclectic body of work that ranges from Valentin, the passionate revolutionary in Kiss of the Spider Woman; to the assassinated Salvadoran archbishop Oscar Romero in Romero; to the campy Gomez Addams in The Addams Family. Mr. Julia's last role, as the Brazilian rainforest activist Chico Mendez, won him posthumous Emmy and Golden Globe Awards. Raul Julia took seriously his responsibility as a role model for young Latino actors to follow. He made it a point to embrace his Puerto Rican heritage, never changing his name or attempting to cover his accent, and still he resisted the sort of typecasting that all too often afflicts minority actors. In doing so, he quite clearly made a difference to any young Latino who aspired to be an actor. In addition to his acting career, Raul Julia was tirelessly devoted to making the world a better place. For the last 15 years of his life, he was involved as a major supporter and spokesman for the Hunger Project, a group dedicated to ending world hunger. After his death in 1994, the Hunger Project created the Raul Julia Ending Hunger Fund in his honor, as well as the Raul Julia Global Citizen Award. Also in his honor, the Hunger Project extended its programs in Latin America, establishing programs in Mexico, Bolivia and Peru. One of Mr. Julia's favorite quotes, which he released to the Washington Post in 1992, comes from Don Quixote: Maddest of all is to see things as they are, not as they ought to be. Raul Julia, accomplished actor of stage and screen, international activist for the alleviation of worldwide hunger and role model for a whole generation of Latino actors, not only saw things as they ought to be, but did his level best to bring his vision to pass. For that he is worthy and deserving of this resolution in his honor. I urge my colleagues to join with me in support of this important resolution. Mr. Speaker, we reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As the ranking member of the House Committee on Government Reform, I am pleased to join my colleague in the consideration of H.R. 3690, legislation naming a postal facility in Batavia, New York, after Barber Conable. This measure was introduced by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) on December 8, 2003. It was unanimously reported by our committee. Barber Conable was born in New York. He attended Warsaw High School and Cornell University. After college, he served in World War II as a United States Marine. After the war, he obtained a law degree and began practicing law. He began his political career in 1962, when he first served in the New York State senate. From there, he ran for Congress, was elected to represent the 30th district in 1964, and he served on the House Committee on Ways and Means where he was active on tax issues. He represented his district for 20 years until his departure in 1985. Now, that states the facts. Let me tell my colleagues that, from my own experience as a Member of Congress who had the honor of serving with Representative Conable, that he was a very distinguished man. People on both sides of the aisle looked to him with respect. When he spoke, all of us listened. He was a man who embodied the civility that we all yearn for in the House of Representatives, a civility that looked to working out issues on a bipartisan basis, looking to treat each other with mutual respect, trying to find opportunities for Members of both parties to find common ground. He left the House and went on to become president of the World Bank, a position he held for 5 years. Upon his retirement, Mr. Conable returned to his New York home. As a distinguished professor, he attended many events at the University of Rochester and was sought after as a brilliant and gifted speaker. Mr. Conable passed away in November of 2003. Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague for seeking to honor our late colleague in this manner. He well deserves whatever praise that we can give him as a very distinguished Member of the House, one who I think serves as a model for those of us who served with him and those who have followed and who yearn for the time when the House of Representatives is not just the partisan institution that we so often see today, but one that seeks to work in a bipartisan manner to look after the best interests of the people in this country and to bring our various perspectives both from our region and from our ideology to some kind of temper where we recognize that we have to all get together in order to do what is best for the American people. Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Workforce Flexibility Act is intended to help NASA recruit and retain the skilled workforce needed to perform its mission. I applaud my colleagues, their staffs, and employee groups for working to improve this legislation from the version that was introduced. Initially, the bill contained language that would have removed the cap on the number of NASA employees permitted to participate in workforce demonstration projects. Eliminating the cap would have allowed NASA to include its entire workforce in a demonstration project before these flexibilities had been tested with smaller groups of employees. In addition, a provision establishing an exchange program between NASA employees and private sector employees was removed from the bill. Such public-private exchange programs have the potential to create conflicts of interest and lead to the disclosure of corporate trade secrets. I am pleased that both of these problematic provisions have been removed from the bill. Although I support this legislation, I am concerned about the process by which the Bush Administration has approached civil service reform in recent years. In granting personnel flexibilities to numerous agencies, the Administration has failed to ensure that these agencies have the infrastructure and safeguards in place to successfully implement these new authorities. The Administration also has failed to evaluate the effectiveness of these flexibilities before allowing other agencies to utilize them. Moreover, civil service reform is best undertaken on a governmentwide basis, not on the agency-by-agency basis that the Administration seems to favor. A piecemeal approach fragments the civil service, making it difficult to ensure that Federal employees are treated fairly. Indeed, the preference for governmentwide reforms is shared by many experts who have studied the workforce challenges facing the civil service. In 2001, the Office of Personnel Management stated that ``it is important to retain governmentwide approaches, authorities, entitlements, and requirements.'' During the consideration of the Department of Defense (DoD) authorization bill last year, the Comptroller General testified that it would be prudent and appropriate for Congress to address the personnel authorities DoD was seeking on a ``governmentwide basis and in a manner that assures that appropriate performance management systems and safeguards are in place before new authorities are implemented in any specific agency. Even the Senate sponsor of this NASA personnel bill has advocated a governmentwide approach. In 2000, Senator Voinovich released a report, concluding that ``the Federal government is in dire need of a unified strategy to rebuild the civil service'' (emphasis added). A significant achievement of the last century was the enactment of laws designed to create a professional, competent Federal civil service. Recent actions by the Administration to grant broad exemptions to these laws, with little forethought and little oversight, have the potential to do far more harm than good.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a truly remarkable educational institution in the 30th Congressional District-- the John Thomas Dye School--on its 75th anniversary. The John Thomas Dye School in Los Angeles, California, was founded in 1929 by Cathryn Robberts Dye and John Thomas Dye II. Originally named the Brentwood Town and Country School, it opened with ten students in 1929 at the corner of 26th Street and San Vicente Boulevard. One of these students was the founders' own son, John Thomas Dye III, who later was tragically killed while a pilot in World War II. In 1959, the school was renamed the John Thomas Dye School in memory of its fallen son. In 1960, the school was moved to its present campus at 1141 Chalon Road. The very next year, the school burned to the ground in the Bel Air Fire. Thanks to the dedication of its founders, and the unwavering and generous support of the community, the school was rebuilt in one year. Today, this independent, nonprofit school educates children from preschool through 6th grade. In addition to its strong academic program, the John Thomas Dye School places special emphasis on the ``Five Cs'': Caring, Common Sense, Consideration, Cooperation, and Courtesy. Throughout its 75 year history, the school has touched the lives of over 1,500 graduates, thousands of parents, and an exceptional faculty and staff. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the John Thomas Dye School family on the occasion of its 75th anniversary.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am inserting into the Congressional Record a copy of a letter we sent to National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice on October 29, 2003, regarding these issues. I am also inserting recent data form the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on November 17, 2003, providing a breakdown of Halliburton's charge of $2.64 per gallon. This data shows that Halliburton is charging the U.S. taxpayer $1.17 per gallon for fuel and $1.21 per gallon for transport, as well as $0.02 per gallon for ``other'' charges, and $0.24 per gallon in ``markups'' that go directly to Halliburton. House of Representatives, Washington, DC, October 29, 2003. Hon. Condoleezza Rice, Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, The White House, Washington, DC. Dear Ms. Rice: We have learned that the U.S. government is paying enormous sums for gasoline imported into Iraq from Kuwait. We are writing to learn why this is happening and what can be done to stop this waste of taxpayer dollars. Here are the facts: 1. As of October 19, 2003, Halliburton has imported 61,304,091 gallons of gasoline from Kuwait into Iraq. Halliburton has been paid $162,503,305 for this gasoline, for an average price of $2.65 per gallon. 2. The $2.65 per gallon price is grossly excessive. Experts we consulted stated that the total price for buying and transporting gasoline into Iraq should be less than $1.00 per gallon. They estimated the price to buy gasoline in the region at 71 cents per gallon, and they estimated transportation costs at less than 25 cents per gallon, for a total per-gallon price of about 96 cents. 3. The Iraqi oil company, SOMO, is currently paying 97 cents per gallon to import gasoline from Kuwait to Iraq. Even Halliburton has charged only $1.22 per gallon to import gasoline from Turkey into Iraq. 4. The gasoline imported from Kuwait is sold inside Iraq for just 4 to 15 cents per gallon. Although Iraq has the second richest oil reserves in the world, the U.S. government is subsidizing over 95% of the cost of gasoline consumed by Iraqis. We have heard different possible explanation for the exorbitant cost of the gasoline. One is that Halliburton is paying inflated prices in order to receive favorable consideration for other projects. Another is that the Bush Administration is responsible and, in effect, is using Halliburton as a vehicle for moving funds. We do not know if either of these explanation is accurate. But we do know that U.S. taxpayers are not getting their money's worth. The U.S. government is paying nearly three times more for gasoline from Kuwait than it should, and then it is reselling this gasoline at a huge loss inside Iraq. Whether this is due to incompetence, malfeasance, or some other reason, the waste of taxpayer dollars must be stopped. We cannot understand the refusal by the Administration to respond to our previous requests for information. We have written the White House twice to express our concerns about how taxpayer dollars are being spent in Iraq. But the White House has refused to address the matter. The signal that this sends is that the Administration either has no explanation or does not care about squandering taxpayer dollars. Three weeks ago, you were given responsibilities for coordinating Iraqi reconstruction efforts. We are therefore writing to you to seek answers to the following basic questions: What is the justification for paying $2.65 per gallon to import gasoline from Kuwait into Iraq? What is the jurisdiction for selling this gasoline for only 4 to 15 cents per gallon inside Iraq? Halliburton issued a subcontract to import gasoline from Kuwait into Iraq that was awarded without any competition. Who received the subcontract and why was the subcontract awarded without competition? Who within the U.S. government and the Coalition Provisional Authority reviewed and approved the subcontract to purchase and transport the gasoline from Kuwait into Iraq? Did any official within the U.S. government or the Coalition Provisional Authority direct Halliburton to use a specific subcontractor to purchase and transport gasoline from Kuwait into Iraq? As you know, the Administration has requested $900 million for fuel imports in the latest emergency supplemental request. In light of this pending request, we ask that you respond to these questions immediately. Sincerely, Henry A. Waxman, Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Government Reform. John D. Dingell, Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Energy and Commerce. The Cost of Gasoline Price per gal. From Turkey: Fuel.............................................................$.89 Transport..........................................................22 Other..............................................................02 Markups............................................................11