Henry Waxman

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, over the past two months Rep. John Dingell and I have written to the White House several times seeking an explanation for the high prices Halliburton is charging to import gasoline into Iraq. We have repeatedly expressed concern that Halliburton has been paid an average price of $2.64 per gallon to import millions of gallons of gasoline from Kuwait into Iraq. Halliburton's price is more than double what others have paid to import gasoline from Kuwait into Iraq, including Iraq's state-owned oil company, SOMO, and the Pentagon's own Defense Energy Support Center. In addition, independent experts I consulted have called these charges a ``huge ripoff'' of the taxpayer. Gasoline imports are one of the single largest expenditures of U.S. reconstruction efforts in Iraq. To date, nearly $450 million has been spent on gasoline imports, and an additional $690 million has been appropriated for gasoline and other fuel imports in 2004. Literally hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars are at stake. Despite these enormous costs, the White House has consistently refused to address this issue. The White House has refused to respond to our inquiries or offer any explanation for the high costs being paid by the taxpayer. Today, I call on the White House to immediately investigate this matter and respond to the concerns raised in our letters.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of Mr. Davis and myself, I would like to submit the following letters for the Record. They provide background on the intent and objectives of the amendment to the Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act of 1974. Richard Nixon Library and Birthplace Foundation, November 21, 2003. Hon. Tom Davis, Hon. Henry A. Waxman, Committee on Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representatives Davis and Waxman: I would like to express our appreciation for your efforts to amend the Presidential Recordings and Materials Act to remove the requirement that the Presidential records of the Nixon Administration be housed in Washington, D.C. It has been more than 29 years since President Nixon left office. Bringing the Nixon Library into the federal system under the terms of the Presidential Libraries Act and at this time is clearly in the public interest. The public interest is best served by the unfettered access for historians and the general public to the records of the Nixon Administration. We agree that current regulations on public access will continue to govern public access to these records in the future; that the records remain the property of the United States; and that the Archivist will be responsible for access to the documents at the Nixon Library. It is our understanding that papers and tapes that have been processed may be transferred to the Nixon Presidential Library once an agreement has been reached between the Nixon Foundation and the Archives, but that those records that have yet to be processed shall continue to be reviewed in a timely fashion at College Park, Maryland. Of course, the ongoing review of records at College Park should not delay the transfer to California of records that have already been processed. The Nixon Foundation is eager to complete discussions with the Archivist in a timely fashion and looks forward to that opportunity. Sincerely, John H. Taylor. U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC, November 20, 2003. Hon. J. Dennis Hastert, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Speaker: Congressman Waxman and I seek to memorialize the amendment to the Presidential Recordings and Materials Act of 1974 included in the Transportation and Treasury Appropriations bill. The measure the Congress is adopting today will make clear that the Presidential Papers of Richard Nixon are eligible for transfer to the Nixon Presidential Library. Under the 1974 Act, it has not been legal to transfer these papers. The purpose of the provision we are enacting today is to move forward the process whereby the Archivist and the directors of the Nixon Library in Yorba Linda, California, will conclude an agreement on the terms of this transfer. The provision enacted today makes clear that any agreement between the Archivist and the Nixon Library to bring the Nixon Library into the federal Presidential library system shall be, as has been the case with all other Presidential libraries, subject to the terms of the Presidential Library Act. Those records will continue to be owned by the United States and administered by the National Archives. The Archivist will not transfer any documents to California until he certifies to Congress that he has determined that there is a suitable archival facility to house those documents. Once the Archivist agrees to accept the Nixon Library into the Presidential Library System and has notified Congress, employees of the National Archives will staff the Library, and the Archivist will be responsible for access to documents at the Library. This measure makes clear the public interest in unfettered access for historians and the general public to the records of the Nixon Presidency. The National Archives is responsible for reviewing the recordings and materials from the Nixon Administration. This is a complicated task of looking at each document and determining if the release of that document would invade someone's privacy or endanger national security. There are concerns that transferring these materials to California would disrupt the processing of them, delaying their public release. This bill will not affect the processing of the records. Papers and tapes that have been processed may be transferred to the Nixon Presidential Library once an agreement has been reached between the Library and NARA. Those records that have yet to be processed shall continue to be reviewed in a timely fashion at College Park, MD. At the same time, that review should not in any way delay the transfer of processed records to California. Sincerely, Tom Davis, Chairman, Committee on Government Reform. Henry A. Waxman, Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Government Reform.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the privatization provisions of this bill, provisions that govern when federal jobs are given to private contractors under an obscure Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular called A-76. It is becoming increasingly clear that the Bush administration has declared war on federal employees. Under the guise of reform, it has stripped hundreds of thousands of federal employees of basic rights, like the right to appeal unfair treatment and the right to collective bargaining. It has opposed modest cost-of-living increases for rank and file employees while at the very same time supporting large cash bonuses for political employees. But the Administration's most direct assault on federal employees is the effort to terminate federal jobs and hire private companies to perform the same work. The President's ``Competitive Sourcing Initiative'' is aggressively forcing federal agencies to allow private contractors to bid for hundreds of thousands of jobs currently being performed by federal employees. Earlier this year, the Administration rewrote the rules governing competitions between public employees and private sector contractors. The House is on record as rejecting those new rules because those rules so blatantly favored contractors over federal employees. And on a bipartisan basis, appropriations conferees last month agreed to certain basic protections for all federal employees. Unfortunately, after the conference was closed on the Transportation Treasury Appropriations bill, OMB registered last minute objections, and the Republican leadership rewrote the bill to eliminate or truncate those basic protections for federal workers. For example, the bill, before us no longer includes language giving federal employees the right to contest agency competitive sourcing decisions, and it no longer even requires that an agency achieve significant cost savings on all privatizations. Mr. Speaker, it is time to end the assault on federal workers. Vote no on this bill. We can do better.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, today we should be voting on legislation that makes a good prescription drug benefit a part of the Medicare program. We should give people real help without gaps in coverage requiring seniors and the disabled to pay thousands of dollars for drugs out of their own pockets. Instead, what we have got is a bill that makes seniors buy private insurance to get drug coverage or go into HMOs where they might not be able to see their own doctor, a bill that lets insurance companies interested in their own profits decide what premium to charge and what drugs to put on their formulary, and a bill that will lead people holding the bag for most of their drug costs in far too many cases. This is not what seniors and the disabled want. This bill uses the cover of providing drug coverage, inadequate as it is, to make very dangerous changes in Medicare. This bill is based on the point of view that Medicare was a mistake, that we should have left it to private insurers to provide health care for our seniors. Well, if we had done that, we would have a lot more seniors today who would be uninsured and struggling with their medical bills. I do not want to turn the clock back on Medicare, I want to make it better. Much as I want prescription drug coverage for seniors, this inadequate drug benefit is not worth destroying Medicare. I do not want a Medicare where seniors and disabled people have to spend a lot more just to be able to stay in regular Medicare. I do not want a Medicare where seniors in Los Angeles have to pay premiums that are twice as high as premiums in some other area of the country, and depend on private insurance companies for what benefits they get. So we might wonder, who benefits from this bill? Well, not the almost 3 million retirees who will end up losing the drug coverage they now have, not the 6 million of our poorest seniors who end up being worst off, and not the 40 million Medicare beneficiaries who cannot use their bargaining power to get lower prices from the drug companies, and not the people who have been able to get their drugs cheaper by going to Canada. It is the drug companies and the insurance companies who benefit from this bill. Let us improve Medicare, not ruin it.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I am very pleased to be able to join my colleagues in urging support for a bill that deems all contact lenses to be medical devices under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act; and I thank the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman) for his leadership in sponsoring this legislation. Anyone who has any doubts about how significantly contact lenses affect the structure and function of the eye need only spend a few minutes talking with the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman), who, by virtue of his professional training, understands these dangers better than anyone else in the House of Representatives. This bill is urgently needed. All contact lenses pose serious health risks. Lenses the wrong size can deprive the surface of the eye of oxygen. Lenses worn for too long can cause painful ulcerations of the cornea. Lenses that are poorly manufactured or misused can become contaminated and cause vision-threatening infections. Until recently, FDA had the tools to control the risks of contact lenses. They considered all lenses of all types to be Class III medical devices. Using its medical device authority, the FDA required that companies follow good manufacturing standards, obtain approval prior to marketing, report adverse events promptly, and sell their lenses only with a prescription from an eye care professional. However, under FDA's current interpretation of the law, some contact lenses are now considered cosmetic, nonmedical devices. These lenses, which the agency refers to as decorative lenses, are colored or feature unusual designs. These lenses pose exactly the same health risks as other lenses, yet today these lenses only have to comply with requirements for cosmetics, and there are very few requirements and they are difficult to enforce. Treating them in this way, I believe, is a recipe for disaster. Lenses sold outside the protections of medical device laws have caused numerous eye injuries. It is critically important that FDA have the ability to stop these dangerous sales as quickly and efficiently as possible. The solution is simple: treat all contact lenses as medical devices. No contact lenses should be classified in the same category as lipstick. H.R. 2218 would ensure that all contact lenses are treated the same as medical devices. This bill is enforced by professional associations representing ophthalmologists and optometrists, by leading manufacturers and by consumer groups. It is a basic consumer protection, and it is common sense. Finally, let me say this bill has been written with the understanding and agreement of all parties that it should not be interpreted as either a rejection or a ratification of the legal arguments underlying FDA's decision to treat noncorrective lenses as cosmetics. For that reason, the bill includes a rule of construction stating that the bill should not be construed as having any effect on any product regulated by the FDA other than the specific contact lenses at issue here. I thank the gentleman from Ohio and the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Health, and I join with every Member who has spoken on this bill in urging support for it.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Pediatric Research Equity Act, and I urge other Members to support it as well. This legislation has been a long time in coming. Physicians have known for decades that failing to test drugs in children could have deadly consequences. It was not until the late 1990s that Congress and the FDA finally acted to ensure testing of drugs in children. In 1997 Congress enacted a bill giving pharmaceutical companies generous financial incentives for voluntarily conducting pediatric studies. A year later, FDA finalized a regulation known as the Pediatric Rule, requiring companies to conduct studies in children for important or widely used drugs, and that regulation was regarded by both the FDA and by physician and patient groups as essential because the financial incentives still left many important drugs and many age groups unstudied. Unfortunately, the Pediatric Rule was struck down by a district court last year. I believe the case was wrongly decided and that FDA had adequate authority; but we need to codify the rule now, as this bill would do, in order to provide children with the strongest protection of their right to receive medicines that are as safe and as effective as the medicines given to adults. While I strongly support this bill, there is one provision I do not support. The bill contains a sunset provision which will repeal in 5 years the protections for children that this bill is designed to provide. I regret this bill did not go through the committee allowing us the opportunity to strike this provision. Sunsetting the bill is simply bad policy. There is no serious medical or public health argument that it would enhance the health of American children to repeal this law in 5 years. Certainly no one makes the argument that the rules regarding testing of drugs in adults need to be reassessed every 5 years. Since the sunset provision is not based on improving the public health, why is it in the bill? I have been told that the law giving companies financial incentives for conducting pediatric studies sunsets every 5 years, so this bill should too. But the financial incentives bill raises very different concerns. Those incentives extend drug company monopolies on popular drugs, which in turn raises the price of those drugs for all Americans. The Congress has an obligation to reassess the size of the incentives periodically to make sure that the cost in higher drug prices is worth the benefit being gained. There is no similar reason to reassess the Pediatric Rule, and I am very concerned that by sunsetting the two bills together, the Congress will be put in a position where reauthorization of the Pediatric Rule is held hostage to reauthorization of the incentives. The fact that we have been denied the opportunity to strike the sunset is unfortunate. Similarly, I regret that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) was denied the opportunity to offer his amendment which addresses an extremely serious issue. I strongly support his amendment and would have liked to have voted for it in committee. Nevertheless, despite my concern with the process, I will vote for this bill. It is urgent that we pass this legislation as quickly as possible. Every day that we do not act to put the Pediatric Rule back into effect, we run an additional risk that the health of American children will be compromised. For more than 40 years, the Food and Drug Act has offered a guarantee to adult Americans that their drugs will be safe and effective. It is time we assured our children of the same guarantee. This bill will also assure that all contact lens care products will be regulated as device accessories.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask that the Record reflect that had I been able to be here, I would have voted ``yea'' on H. Con. Res. 288 and H. Res. 393.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to honor today a distinguished constituent of Los Angeles, the ``Wizard of Westwood'' himself, Coach John Wooden. His incredible achievements on the basketball court have shattered the record books and set the bar to which all college basketball teams and coaches are compared today. Coach Wooden is without question the most successful college basketball coach in history. In his first year coaching at UCLA in 1948, Coach Wooden took a team that was picked to finish last in its conference and took them, through sheer perspiration and hustle, along to first place in their division, setting a school record for wins in a single season. The next season, Coach Wooden led the Bruins to their first ever NCAA tournament appearance. Under his masterful guidance over his twenty-seven year coaching career at UCLA, the Bruins set all-time college records with four perfect seasons, 88 consecutive victories, 38 straight NCAA tournament victories, 20 PAC-10 conference championships, and ten national championships, including seven in a row. Coach Wooden and his Bruins teams were synonymous with being #1, and it is likely that these records will never be surpassed. Coach Wooden was deservedly recognized as Coach of the Year six times, and is enshrined in the Basketball Hall of Fame as both a player and coach. Yet, it is his successes off the court as a mentor and gentle teacher which make Coach Wooden's legacy far greater than statistics could ever measure. While at UCLA, Coach Wooden developed his ``Pyramid of Success'' principles which formed his philosophy of winning basketball and outlook on success in life. Embodied in maxims such as ``be quick, but don't hurry'' and ``it is not important who starts the game but who finishes it,'' Coach Wooden instilled in his players the qualities of leadership, teamwork, hard work, and attention to detail, hallmarks of his great teams, which the players applied to their personal lives as well. ``Things turn out best for those who make the best of the way things turn out,'' Coach Wooden likes to say. It was Coach Wooden's guidance that enabled these students to become humble, accomplished persons as well as athletes, long after their basketball careers ended. With his loving and devoted wife Nell by his side, John Wooden's incredible impact on his players, on the UCLA community, and the sports world in general will always be remembered. A man of the highest integrity, Coach Wooden demanded only the best from a person and from his talents. I am also submitting for the Record a piece about Coach Wooden by Rick Reilly that appeared in Sports Illustrated in March 2000. It is further testament to this great man's character and contribution to sport. It is a distinct honor to pay tribute to this legendary teacher and coach today, a role model for all of us, both athletes and fans alike, to follow. A Paragon Rising Above the Madness (By Rick Reilly) On Tuesday the best man I know will do what he always does on the 21st of the month. He'll sit down and pen a love letter to his best girl. He'll say how much he misses her and loves her and can't wait to see her again. Then he'll fold it once, slide it in a little envelope and walk into his bedroom. He'll go to the stack of love letters sitting there on her pillow, untie the yellow ribbon, place the new one on top and tie the ribbon again. The stack will be 180 letters high then, because Tuesday is 15 years to the day since Nellie, his beloved wife of 53 years, died. In her memory, he sleeps only on his half of the bed, only on his pillow, only on top of the sheets, never between, with just the old bedspread they shared to keep him warm. There's never been a finer man in American sports than John Wooden, or a finer coach. He won 10 NCAA basketball championships at UCLA, the last in 1975. Nobody has ever come within six of him. He won 88 straight games between Jan. 30, 1971, and Jan. 17, 1974. Nobody has come within 42 since. So, sometimes, when the Madness of March gets to be too much--too many players trying to make SportsCenter, too few players trying to make assists, too many coaches trying to be homeys, too few coaches willing to be mentors, too many freshmen with out-of-wedlock kids, too few freshmen who will stay in school long enough to become men--I like to go see Coach Wooden. I visit him in his little condo in Encino, 20 minutes northwest of L.A., and hear him say things like ``Gracious sakes alive!'' and tell stories about teaching ``Lewis'' the hook shot. Lewis Alcindor, that is, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. There has never been another coach like Wooden, quiet as an April snow and square as a game of checkers; loyal to one woman, one school, one way; walking around campus in his sensible shoes and Jimmy Stewart morals. He'd spend a half hour the first day of practice teaching his men how to put on a sock. ``Wrinkles can lead to blisters,'' he'd warn. These huge players would sneak looks at one another and roll their eyes. Eventually, they'd do it right. ``Good,'' he'd say. ``And now for the other foot.'' Of the 180 players who played for him, Wooden knows the whereabouts of 172. Of course, it's not hard when most of them call, checking on his health, secretly hoping to hear some of his simple life lessons so that they can write them on the lunch bags of their kids, who will roll their eyes. ``Discipline yourself, and others won't need to,'' Coach would say. ``Never lie, never cheat, never steal,'' Coach would say. ``Earn the right to be proud and confident.'' You played for him, you played by his rules: Never score without acknowledging a teammate. One word of profanity, and you're done for the day. Treat your opponent with respect. He believed in hopelessly out-of-date stuff that never did anything but win championships. No dribbling behind the back or through the legs. ``There's no need,'' he'd say. No UCLA basketball number was retired under his watch. ``What about the fellows who wore that number before? Didn't they contribute to the team?'' he'd say. No long hair, no facial hair. ``They take too long to dry, and you could catch cold leaving the gym,'' he'd say. That one drove his players bonkers. One day, All-America center Bill Walton showed up with a full beard. ``It's my right,'' he insisted. Wooden asked if he believed that strongly. Walton said he did. ``That's good, Bill,'' Coach said. ``I admire people who have strong beliefs and stick by them, I really do. We're going to miss you.'' Walton shaved it right then and there. Now Walton calls once a week to tell Coach he loves him. It's always too soon when you have to leave the condo and go back out into the real world, where the rules are so much grayer and the teams so much worse. As Wooden shows you to the door, you take one last look around. The framed report cards of the great-grandkids. The boxes of jelly beans peeking out from under the favorite wooden chair. The dozens of pictures of Nellie. He's almost 90 now, you think. A little more hunched over than last time. Steps a little smaller. You hope it's not the last time you see him. He smiles. ``I'm not afraid to die,'' he says. ``Death is my only chance to be with her again.'' Problem is, we still need him here.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I was amused at the comment of our colleague who said that this bill can be characterized as ``leave no lobbyist behind.'' This is the worst special interest piece of legislation I think I have seen in almost 30 years in the House of Representatives. Do we know how much this bill is going to cost? Over $140 billion. We give the oil, gas, coal, and nuclear industries direct grants and tax breaks; and in many cases, we give them money because we forgive them from liability for their own wrongdoing. It used to be if a polluter caused pollution, we said the polluter had to pay to clean it up. This legislation turns that on its head. For example, with MTBE, which is an additive in gasoline that gets into our ground water, the companies are going to be forgiven for any liability, which means it shifts the costs on to the victims, the communities, to have to pay for it. This bill might be justified if it really were a good energy policy, and it would get us away from dependence on oil and importing oil. I mean, after all, we are fighting against weapons that were paid for by Saddam Hussein from the money we paid him to bring in oil from Iraq. But it does not do that. This bill makes us more dependent on importing foreign oil. One could say, well, if we are going to have an energy policy, we ought to be more efficient in our use of energy resources. We ought to look for alternative fuels. This bill does not do that. What this bill does is roll back environmental protections; it rolls back the Clean Air Act, the drinking water law, the Clean Water Act. It allows our coasts to be attacked by the oil and gas companies for exploitation. This is a bill that is really a giveaway. And I think it is a sad result of a process that was tainted, because the process was Republicans meeting with other Republicans behind closed doors figuring out what the policy ought to be. It is the same thing that happened with the origin of the bill when Vice President Cheney had a task force where he only met with the energy producers, would not even meet with the environmentalists, and then came out with recommendations that really favored Enron and some of these other energy corporations. So I think that we ought to reject this legislation. I urge my colleagues to defeat it. I will certainly vote against it. From California's perspective, it is particularly harmful, because we were gouged by the energy wholesalers and with electricity rates, and we get no relief from this legislation. In fact, I think a lot of the energy electricity provisions are going to cause the problem we had in California to be a problem that will be experienced elsewhere around the country while some of these oil companies get richer.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I rise to express my opposition to the conference report on the Department of Defense authorization bill. I want to pick up with where the last speaker finished. He said he thought in this bill they went a little further than was necessary in the area of the Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act. I want to say what I believe to be the case, that the problem with this bill is that it has been hijacked by the Republican leadership and the White House, who insisted on provisions that weakened environmental laws relating to the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act. I am also the ranking member of the Committee on Government Reform, and I want to address the civil service provisions in this bill. I am not opposed to reasonable reform that makes the Federal Government function more efficiently and still protects the basic rights of Federal employees, but this bill is not reasonable. Senator Collins developed a bipartisan compromise that safeguarded the collective bargaining rights of 700,000 DOD employees, yet gave DOD much of the flexibility it requested, but this bill abandons that compromise. This bill makes a mockery of labor relations at the Defense Department. At the same time that the bill claims to protect collective bargaining, it allows DOD to waive these requirements for the next 6 years. During these 6 years, the Department can run rough-shod over its unions. The Department can decide what issues will be bargained, how labor and management impasses will be resolved and whether it will discriminate against union members. This bill also makes it harder for DOD employees to gain redress for unfair treatment. Currently employees have the ability to file appeals with the independent Merit Systems Protection Board, but under this bill employees first would have to go through an internal DOD appeals process. An administration that says it is against bureaucracy and red tape wants to create so much bureaucracy for employee appeals that employees will simply give up trying to protect their rights. The bill removes requirements for DOD employees to receive overtime pay or pay for working on holidays or weekends. This is ironic, since both the House and the Senate recently voted to protect overtime pay for private sector employees. As the war efforts in Iraq have demonstrated, DOD employees do not work only Monday through Friday, 9 to 5. Frankly, it is shameful that Congress is going to give those employees who safeguard our national security less overtime protection than it gives private employees. Finally, I have concerns about some of the provisions dealing with government-wide procurement policy. In particular, the bill extends to all civilian agencies something known as ``other transaction authority'' for research and development projects related to defense against terrorism. This would essentially waive all Federal procurement laws for these contracts. The bill also includes excessive waivers of procurement rules for contracts related to other anti-terrorism products and services. It is wrong to take important must-pass legislation like the DOD authorization and load it up with right-wing policies that damage the environment and strip employees of basic rights, but that is what this bill is doing, and I am going to urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, today, Representative Susan Davis, Representative Dingell, and I are introducing the Dietary Supplement Access and Awareness Act. Since the passage of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act ten years ago, it has become clear that the dietary supplement market includes not just vitamins, minerals, and nutrients that can safely promote health. The market also includes products that can cause harm. Ephedra, for example, is linked to a number of serious adverse events, including heart attack, stroke, and death. Aristolochic acid, which is in some traditional Chinese medicines, can cause kidney failure. Usnic acid, an ingredient in some weight loss supplements, may cause liver toxicity. These safety concerns are serious, and they deserve a serious response. In the last couple of years, Congress has begun to pay more attention to dietary supplement safety. Senator Durbin held hearings on ephedra and has introduced comprehensive legislation to ensure that supplements are safe. The House Commerce Committee has also held hearings, and today we are introducing legislation that would enhance FDA's authority to protect consumers from unsafe products. This is a common sense bill that contains many of the same elements as the Durbin bill and responds to concerns raised by consumers, medical groups, parents, and professional and collegiate athletic leagues. They have said it is time to mend the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act in order to protect consumers from the few dietary supplements--like ephedra--that could pose a real risk to health and safety. The bill accomplishes this goal in four steps. First, the bill assures that the Food and Drug Administration has basic information about who makes dietary supplements. If a problem surfaces with a particular product, FDA will know who makes the product and can quickly inspect the plant or take other appropriate action. Second, the bill assures that FDA receives information about adverse effects associated with supplements. This information will allow the agency to spot signs of danger. The agency can then investigate further. This provision would prevent a repeat of the ephedra disaster, where one manufacturer denied the existence of thousands of adverse event reports for years. Third, the bill allows FDA to prohibit the sale to minors of supplement products that may cause significant harm. This is a very important power that FDA does not currently have. There are products being targeted to kids for which there is little or no evidence of safety but there is real evidence of risk. Many of these products are sold as performance enhancers and contain ephedra or steroid-like substances. Fourth, the bill gives FDA the tools to understand whether a potentially risky dietary supplement is dangerous or safe. Imagine a dietary supplement that is linked by physicians to serious illnesses and deaths. Under current law, this product is essentially assumed safe until demonstrated by FDA to be unsafe. This is a burden of proof that literally requires that more and more consumers be seriously injured or killed before the agency can take action. Under our bill, FDA can require that a manufacturer of a product provide evidence of safety if FDA has evidence that the product may pose serious risks to consumers. Most manufacturers say they already have substantiation of safety in their files. If this is true, this requirement should not pose an undue burden on manufacturers. Let me make one comment about what this bill does not do. This legislation will not in any way affect the regulation of vitamins and minerals. Vitamins and minerals are expressly exempted from this legislation. If passed, this legislation will address many of the concerns of medical groups, athletic organizations and leagues, and parents while preserving access to low-risk dietary supplements. It is a common sense approach that is urgently needed. Although this bill does not specifically address stimulants, like ephedra, in dietary supplements, I am very concerned about the risks associated with these products. These products can raise blood pressure and increase metabolism, which may lead to a number of serious problems, including increased susceptibility to heatstroke, as well as heart attack, stroke, and sudden death. I have written to FDA Commissioner McClellan asking him if there is any evidence that proves that these stimulant ingredients that are being marketed in ``ephedra- free'' products are any safer than ephedra, and asking him if FDA shares the concern of many experts who believe that stimulants pose particular health risks.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 409, which condemns the appalling anti-Semitic remarks made by Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad during his keynote address at the recent Islamic Summit Conference. Sadly, Dr. Mahathir's remarks were only a culmination of years of bitter anti-Semitic and anti-Israel rhetoric that have been hallmarks of his political career. Only months ago, he handed out the Protocols of the Elders of Zion during his political party's annual meeting. When the Asian financial crisis caused the collapse of the Malaysian currency, Dr. Mahathir often used Jews as scapegoats for political and economic setbacks claiming that they were the result of a Jewish conspiracy. In a 1986 speech he stated that ``the expulsion of Jews from the Holy Land 2,000 years ago and the Nazi oppression of Jews have taught them nothing. If anything at all, it has transformed the Jews into the very monsters that they condemn.'' While Dr. Mahathir's outrageous comments have caused fury in the past, the reaction to this speech by the leaders of the Islamic world dangerously signals the mainstream acceptance of his hateful and extremist views. In the days following the conference Dr. Mahathir's remarks were glorified in the Saudi newspaper Ar-Riyadh, deemed ``brilliant'' by the supposedly moderate President Mohammad Khatami of Iran, affirmed by Afghan President Hamid Karzai, admired by the Foreign Minister of Egypt, and defended by the Foreign Minister of Yemen. Just as troubling as this effusive praise was the silence that followed from the leaders of most Western European nations. These countries have seen first-hand an alarming rise of anti-Semitic attacks because of the explosion of anti-Semitic hatred and intolerance in European Muslim communities. They lived through the Holocaust and World War II and should know they must not repeat the mistake again of silence and/or participation in anti-Semitism. Although Dr. Mahathir's reign is thankfully coming to an end, the international community must recognize the pervasive growth of anti- Semitic and anti-Western literature, television shows, and political platforms in Arab and Muslim countries and take action. If not, the world will suffer the consequences for generations to come.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, the Bush administration has made it impossible for me and others to do what we would otherwise want to do. Under normal circumstances, I would support the President's request for $87 billion in additional spending for Iraq and Afghanistan, but I cannot do that today. The Bush administration's Iraq policy has been grounded in secrecy, deceit, and politics. Some suspected that a year ago. I refused to believe it. But now, it is inescapable. The intolerable reality is that they blatantly twisted intelligence information to fit preconceived policies. They lied to promote public relations, from the Jessica Lynch ordeal to the President's campaign landing on the USS Abraham Lincoln and on what the war would cost our country. And through all of it, they have refused to answer questions, provide honest information, and accept any oversight or accountability for their actions. It is an abysmal and, at times, inexcusable record. I voted for the Iraq resolution last year. I relied on the President's representations about the imminent threat Iraq posed to the United States. And I relied on the statements that other senior administration officials, including the Vice President, made regarding Iraq's nuclear capability. I will not make that same mistake again. They have squandered their credibility and the normal deference we give to any administration, Democratic or Republican. I say all of this knowing full well we must finish what we started in Iraq. I feel that as strongly as any member of the House. And as one who voted for the resolution, I feel a responsibility to make sure we honor the sacrifice so many have already made by achieving a democratic and safe Iraq. And I feel a special obligation to our troops to make sure they have everything they need to be as safe and effective as possible. But before I agree to the President's request, I want to be confident that those running the war are doing their job and that the reconstruction effort is effective, not wasteful, spending. Some say the easy political vote is to support the President's request and defend it by saying we are supporting the troops. But if we really want to support the troops, we will first make sure that the people running the war know what they are doing. No American soldier should die because of mistakes up the line. This administration must put aside its stubbornness and make the world community a serious and active part of this process. Then we could vote for the President's request in good conscience. Mr. Chairman, the Bush administration has made a series of terrible mistakes in formulating its Iraq policy. But even in the face of those mistakes, the administration insists on going it alone. No help from other countries. No oversight by the Congress. No accountability to the American people. That will never change if we give them an automatic ``yes'' vote on today's bill. Instead, voting ``yes'' will encourage them to continue the policies that do not work and tactics that deserve condemnation. Our troops deserve better than that. We should oppose the President's request until this administration demonstrates that it puts our troops before politics and honesty before pride.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote on the amendment.

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

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This supplemental includes a request by the Bush administration for an additional $2.1 billion in oil reconstruction funds for Iraq. This request nearly triples the administration's previous estimate for Iraqi oil reconstruction costs. On September 12, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and I wrote to the Office of Management and Budget asking for basic details about this request and for an explanation of the enormous increase. We received no response. More than a month now has passed and the administration has provided absolutely no information to explain this vast increase. I contacted the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the agency in charge of oil reconstruction, to ask how this request for $2.1 billion was developed. They told me they could not provide any information because they were not involved in preparing this request; it was done by the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq. So I contacted the CPA to ask for some basic details about how much the taxpayer has been paying Halliburton for work under the oil reconstruction contract. They said they did not know and told me to talk to the Army Corps, which had already told me they were not involved with the administration's request. In this morning's New York Times, OMB officials said they do not know about this either. They said they would try to talk to the CPA, but that this was difficult because Baghdad is so many time zones away. It is an Abbot and Costello ``Who's on First'' routine, and it might even be funny if it were not going to cost the taxpayers $250 million in wasted money. The fact is, Halliburton, the company importing gasoline into Iraq, is overcharging U.S. taxpayers. Although gasoline, and you can see this from this chart, costs 71 cents per gallon in the gulf, Halliburton is charging the taxpayers more than twice as much, $1.62 to $1.70 per gallon. This costly gasoline is then sold inside Iraq for as little as a nickel per gallon. As a result, the U.S. taxpayer loses $1.50 or more every time a gallon of gas is sold in Iraq. Independent experts have looked at this and have been stunned by the Halliburton inflated prices, calling them outrageously high, a huge ripoff, and highway robbery; but no committee in the House is investigating, no committee is asking Halliburton or the CPA or the Corps or OMB to justify this gouging; and it seems no one in the administration is exercising any oversight. Enough is enough. Millions of Americans are willing to help the Iraqis, but they do not want to be fleeced. We have to stop turning a blind eye when Halliburton overcharges the taxpayers by millions of dollars. Now, I realize Halliburton is a big campaign contributor and has a special relationship with the Bush administration. I realize it would be easier to look the other way. But this has to end. We owe that to the taxpayer. And at some point everyone in this House is going to have to explain why we are making the taxpayer pay for gasoline at $1.70 per gallon and then selling the gasoline to Iraqis for a nickel. Our amendment is a small, but important, step in restoring some sanity to this process. It reduces the amount that will be paid to Halliburton to purchase gasoline by $250 million. This is a conservative estimate of the amount the taxpayer will be overcharged. I urge my colleagues to end the fleecing of taxpayers and support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the cosponsor of this amendment and the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. American Jewish history commenced in 1492 with the expulsion of Jews from Spain. This action set off a period of intense Jewish migration. Seeking to escape the clutches of the Inquisition, some Jews in the 16th century sought refuge in the young Calvinist republic of the Netherlands. A century later hundreds of their descendants crossed the ocean to settle in the new Dutch colony of Recife in Brazil, where Jewish communal life became possible for the first time in the New World. When Portugal recaptured this colony in 1654, its Jews scattered to the Dutch port of New Amsterdam, now New York City. Colonial Jews never exceeded \1/10\ of 1 percent of the American population; yet they established the patterns of Jewish communal life that persisted for generations. Jews lived in cosmopolitan cities like New York where there were opportunities for commerce and trade and organized synagogue communities. Charleston, Philadelphia, New York, and Newport each had one synagogue that assumed responsibility for the religious and communal needs of all local Jews. Early Jewish Americans explored, wrote poetry, and created industries. Jews have continued to make important contributions to the history and culture of America. During 2004 and 2005, 350 years of Jewish life in America will be commemorated, honored, and celebrated. Jewish immigration to America throughout the last 350 years brought with it legions of notable researchers, lawyers, statesmen, inventors, artists, authors, musicians, doctors, entrepreneurs, spiritual leaders, and Members of Congress. This resolution honors the life, culture, and contributions of the 6.5 million Jews who live in America and those who came before them. I join the sponsors in supporting this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my colleague, Mr. Berman, to pay tribute to our good friend Marjorie Biller Green who is retiring after 16 years as the Director of Educational Policy and Programs for the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). Marjorie's strong leadership and vision have played a vital role in furthering ADL's mission and we are grateful for all she has done. Prior to joining the ADL, Marjorie enjoyed a long and successful career in education. She served as the Executive Director for the California Coalition for Public Education, the Coordinator for the Wilshire Community Educational Complex of the Los Angeles Unified School District, the Community Liaison for the Integration Team of the Los Angeles Unified School District and as an Educational Consultant for the Rand Corporation. All of this experience helped make her an incredibly effective Director of ADL's Educational Policy Programs--the position she has held since 1987. However, it was her passion, creativity, and dedication that made her a great leader. As Director of Education Policy and Programs and as Assistant Director of ADL's National A World of Difference Institute, Marjorie proved that with the right combination of innovation, collaboration, and commitment one person can make a tremendous positive impact. During Marjorie's tenure with ADL, she helped schools promote religious diversity; publishers improve textbooks to promote Jews and other minorities accurately and without stereotypes; educators, here and in Israel, foster skills to combat bigotry; parents and educators learn how to help children cope with traumatic events such as 9/11; the Shoah Visual Historical Foundation develop a Holocaust education curriculum; and teens recognize the common humanity of all people through programs such as the Children of the Dream Program. These are but a few of her many impressive accomplishments. She will be missed at the ADL and by our entire community. Mr. Speaker, we invite our colleagues to join us in thanking Marjorie Green for her exemplary contributions to the Anti-Defamation League and to wish her continued success in all her future endeavors.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to support the Government Network Security Act of 2003, legislation that would protect the security of Federal Government computers from the risks posed by peer to peer sharing. I introduced this legislation with my colleague on the Committee on Government Reform, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), and I want to thank him for his interest on this issue and he and his staff for all the work they have done to address the risk of peer-to-peer file sharing. This is legislation that both of us have worked closely together to develop. In recent years, peer-to-peer file sharing programs have gone from little known to an incredibly popular Internet application. In fact, the most popular of these file-sharing programs, Kazaa, has been downloaded more than 280 million times, making it the most downloaded software program ever. In a series of hearings earlier this year, our committee looked into these peer-to-peer file-sharing programs and the issues they raised. What we found out is that the risks they posed, particularly to our personal privacy and security, can be significant. At a Committee on Government Reform hearing in May, we heard from leading network security experts from universities and the private sector talk about how peer-to-peer file sharing can put computers at risk for viruses, worms and other damaging computer files. And the committee investigation found that without even knowing it, people are sharing incredibly personal information through these programs. Our staff investigators found completed tax returns, medical files, and even entire E-mail in boxes being shared on these networks. Government computers are not immune from these risks. A GAO investigation, which is still underway, has found that even at Los Alamos National Laboratory, where top secret research is often conducted, file-sharing programs have been found on government computers. Protecting government computers from these security risks is essential. The Federal Government has computer records with incredibly sensitive personal information about citizens, including tax returns, military records and medical and psychiatric records. It also, obviously, has many files with important national security information. It is important to protect government computers from computer viruses. In the last several weeks, we have seen how the spread of just two or three malicious viruses can slow the functioning of government. We need to make sure Federal Government computers and networks stay protected from these threats. It is not difficult to safeguard Federal computers from these risks. The House of Representatives recognized the privacy and security threats posed by peer-to-peer programs nearly 2 years ago and took steps to protect against them. The Senate did the same shortly thereafter, but many of our Federal agencies have yet to follow suit. The Government Network Security Act of 2003 is simple legislation. It requires that when developing their network security policy and procedures, Federal agencies address the risks posed by peer-to-peer file-sharing programs. Plans to address these risks may include technological means, such as firewalls, and nontechnological means, such as employee training. Technical innovation is tremendously important, including potential innovation involving peer-to-peer file-sharing technologies. This act recognizes this, and it protects the ability of Federal agencies to pursue new technologies, including peer-to-peer technology. The only limitation it imposes is a requirement that agencies not jeopardize the security of sensitive government records. When popularly available, peer-to-peer file-sharing programs can threaten us with viruses and worms and put in risk the privacy of sensitive information. I think we can all agree that they have no place on government computers and networks. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I also rise in support of this legislation, and I want to commend the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) and the others who have brought this legislation forward. I know the important role that the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) played in urging us to pass this legislation. It makes sense. This bill offers a fair remedy for retired and active duty District firefighters, District police officers, U.S. Secret Service, and U.S. Park Police that is in parity with Federal employees. There is no reason they should not have that parity. In the late 1980s, Congress passed similar legislation offering Federal retirees enrolled in the Federal Employees Retirement System and the Civil Service Retirement System an opportunity to buy back their military time to maintain a consistent annuity once they became eligible for Social Security benefits. After the Department of the Treasury assumed financial responsibility of the D.C. Metro plan in 1997, they conducted an audit and discovered an oversight of a Federal law that prohibits any retiree with post-1956 military service from crediting that time towards their retirement once they become eligible for Social Security. These brave men and women serve our country and our communities without question. We have a duty to meet our commitment to them, that they will be offered opportunities for a comfortable retirement. There are at least 300 retired police officers and firefighters whose annuities have already been reduced, with an average of 3 years of post-1956 military service. The D.C. police officers and firefighters retirement plans cover approximately 14,000 retirees and survivors who served as D.C. police officers, firefighters, U.S. Secret Service and Park Police. We need to treat them fairly. That is why I would urge all my colleagues to support this bill. It is a bill that I cannot see how anybody could oppose it. I just think it is the right thing to do; and given that fact, there is nothing more that I could say on this matter except let us as quickly as we can pass this bill to the other body and hope they send it to the President for his signature. Let no time go further and lose the opportunity to correct what is a defect in the law and that we have an opportunity to correct. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I have no other speakers here at the present time, but I know there are Members who want to put their statements in the Record in support of this legislation, especially those who have played such a fundamental role in advancing this cause and bringing it to our attention. Mr. Speaker, seeing that they will have an opportunity, I am sure, at the appropriate time, I yield back the balance of our time.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, the senior member on our subcommittee that handled this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman of our committee and the ranking member of the subcommittee for the constructive way that this bill has been processed by our Committee on Government Reform. The problem of drug abuse is a serious problem. This legislation reauthorizes the work at the Office of National Drug Control Policy. The introduced version of the bill had a number of problems which I am pleased that we were able to work through. It provided that the possibility that the media campaign could be used for partisan political purposes and imposed limitations on the funds that could be used by the drug czar for free media campaigns. On a bipartisan basis, we changed that, and the bill now ensures that the media campaign cannot be used for partisan political activities, and it adds a new provision banning the use of the media campaign to advocate for or against a ballot initiative, draft legislation, or regulatory proposal. We also struck controversial language allowing the director to take resources away from the States that have medical marijuana laws. We dropped language limiting the ability of the ONDCP to engage in nontraditional forms of outreach and education. We deleted language overturning a unanimous ruling of the FCC requiring ONDCP advertisements to be identified as paid for by the ONDCP. We made progress in requiring that 80 percent of the media campaign dollars must go to media buys. The present requirement is now 77 percent. I would prefer that there be no requirement at all, but I think this is an improvement. We were able to address many problems during the committee process, and the result is a much better product. I want to point out that this bill is not a perfect bill. And one of the remaining problems concerns the use of HIDTA, the HIDTA funds, for treatment. Further work need to be done to address the need for more drug treatment, and I have talked to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) about that matter. And based on his promise that we will continue to talk about it and look further at this issue, I am not going to oppose the bill on that basis. But I do hope that when the bill goes through to a conference or comes out of the Senate, that we will do more in the area of treatment. Mr. Speaker, it is a bill that I urge my colleagues to support. I hope that we can work to make ONDCP even better in the future.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Van Hollen amendment to the Transportation, Treasury Appropriations bill. The amendment of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) blocks the administration from using Federal funds to implement revisions to the A-76 process. In effect, it prevents the administration from paying politics with the civil service system, and it deserves my colleagues' strong support. Now, this week the Brookings Institution reported on the true size of government. Unfortunately, the report is not surprising to those of us who have watched this administration's assault on the Federal workforce. The Brookings Institution found that the shadow workforce of private contractors working for the Federal Government is now 16.7 million, which is 9.5 times as large as the civil service workforce. This administration is not satisfied with a private contractor workforce of 16.7 million, so it is launching yet another attack on Federal employees. Let me say to those conservatives who say, we want to shrink government, contracting out does not shrink government. It is public- funded jobs, but it is public-funded jobs in the private sector. Taxpayers are paying for it, but these people may not have any of the benefits, and they may not be saving us any money. This administration is launching yet another attack on Federal employees because the vehicle for this assault is this obscure OMB circular called A-76, which the administration recently revised to accelerate the transfer of Federal jobs to the private sector. This mad rush to privatize civil service is dangerous. When the government turns to poorly supervised private contractors, the potential for waste, fraud, and abuse soars. This is not just my assessment. Just read the countless GAO reports on contractor abuses. The problem is so bad that contract management at DOD, the Department of Energy, and NASA, the three agencies that most heavily rely on private contractors, is on the GAO's list of high-risk Federal programs. Mr. Chairman, the Office of Management and Budget's Statement of Administration Policy alleges that the Van Hollen amendment prohibits funding for public-private competitions. It does not. The Van Hollen amendment simply prohibits these competitions from being conducted under the newly revised rules giving it an unfair advantage to private contractors. The Washington Monthly wrote last month, ``Even the Federal payroll can become a source of patronage. . . . Bush has proposed opening up 850,000 Federal jobs, about half of the total, to private contractors. And while doing so may or may not save taxpayers much money, it will divert taxpayer money out of the public sector and into private sector firms, where the GOP has a chance to steer contracts toward politically-connected firms.'' This is not shrinking government. This is using government for patronage. It does not create new private sector jobs. It creates private sector public-taxpayer-funded jobs. Mr. Chairman, it is time to stop this destructive effort to give Federal jobs to private contractors who are campaign supporters. Vote yes on the Van Hollen amendment and stop this administration's war on Federal employees.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of Congressman Allen's amendment to protect seniors. This amendment bars EPA from applying the discredited ``senior death discount'' when evaluating the benefits of pollution control. Instead, the amendment requires EPA to place an equal value on each adult life saved. You may wonder why we need this amendment. After all, the right of equal protection is enshrined in our Constitution. Well, here's the problem. When EPA adopts a pollution control requirement, EPA often looks at the public health benefits to decide whether to make the requirement more or less protective. In particular, EPA looks at the number of lives we could save by reducing pollution that causes cancer, heart attacks, strokes and other fatal diseases. Then EPA translates the lives saved into a dollar value. You may or may not agree with putting dollar values on human life, but that's what the agency does. Traditionally, EPA has said that all lives have an equal value. But recently, the White House Office of Management and Budget has been pushing agencies to base the dollar value of a life on the age of the person. Specifically, the Administration said that the life of each person older than 70 was worth 37 percent less than the life of a younger person. That's just wrong. It's so wrong that this past May EPA said it will stop. Then- Administrator Christie Todd Whitman said: ``EPA will not, I repeat, not, use an age-adjusted analysis in decision making.'' But OMB didn't make any promises. According to Dr. John Graham, who oversees all of the Administration's rulemaking, the only thing wrong with the senior death discount was a technical flaw--the 37 percent discount wasn't the right number. OMB still insists that the value of saving a life may depend on a person's age. And OMB is still pushing EPA to use this technique. This amendment says no. We're not less worried about air pollution if it ``only'' kills our parents and grandparents. Cancer isn't less painful when it strikes the elderly. Senior Americans have worked hard all their lives, and they don't deserve to be abandoned now. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to ban the Senior Death Discount.