Henry Waxman

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague very much for yielding me time to speak on this issue, and I do so with a great deal of regret because on the House floor today we should be backing a bill on a bipartisan basis without any dissent because, whether one is a Democrat or a Republican, all of us want to encourage people in the health care and first responder community to get the vaccination for smallpox so they can be of service to all of us should, God forbid, there be a smallpox attack. I am forced now to rise in opposition to this bill, and I want to point out that the bill is on the suspension of the rules, which is ordinarily reserved for noncontroversial matters. As a matter of fact, this bill is very controversial. It should have been debated and considered under the rules of the House. That would have given Members an opportunity to put forward alternatives so that the Members of the House of Representatives could listen to a debate and make choices on policies. Instead, what we have is a suspension calendar being used to close off any opportunity for amendments, to prevent alternatives from being put forward so our colleagues who have been duly elected in 435 districts in this country, could have the right to choose what they thought was the best policy. This suspension of the rules procedure is nothing more than a gag to prevent Members, Democrats and Republicans, from being able to make choices, which is what they were elected to do. The reason I oppose this bill is substantive. This bill will not adequately compensate nurses, firefighters, police officers, and other first responders who are injured by the smallpox vaccine, a vaccine that they take voluntarily in order to make sure that the country is prepared for a bioterrorist attack. We have tried to work with the Republicans to craft legislation that all of these groups can support. However, the Republicans were unwilling to agree to a meaningful compensation program and have put forward H.R. 1463, a bill that is opposed by every one of these groups. The issue of how to compensate people for smallpox vaccine injuries is only hard if someone decides to make it hard, and that seems to be what the House Republican leadership and the Bush administration have done. The science is not hard. For every million people who are immunized against smallpox, one of two will die and 10 to 20 will become severely ill or disabled. The policy is not hard. If people get injured in the line of public duty, the public should compensate them, and the administration has asked nurses and firefighters and other first responders to take smallpox shots, not for their own good, but to protect all Americans in case of a bioterrorist attack. The substance is not hard. A compensation program should be clear about what it covers. It should provide decent benefits if someone is disabled or killed, and it should have guaranteed funding. The law is not hard. We have a successful program of no-fault compensation for children who are injured by vaccines. We have programs for Federal workers and even Federal volunteers who are disabled or killed. We even have a program for compensation of people hurt or killed on September 11, 2001. The budgeting is not hard. If every nurse or firefighter got the average award from the September 11 fund, which they will not, we would only be committing $18 to $33 million per million vaccinations. At most, that is 400ths of 1 percent of what the administration has requested for the war. The process is not hard. If there is honest disagreement about legislation, which there is, then the House should be allowed to debate amendments and make choices. This should be an easy one, but the House leadership and the administration are making it very hard. H.R. 1463 includes a lifetime cap on wage assistance for injured first responders and their families. This means that the families of nurses or other first responders may have to fend for themselves without a bread winner after just a few years of compensation. The lump-sum payment offered by H.R. 1463 is clearly inadequate for death or permanent disability for a nurse who has a family to support. A second problem is that H.R. 1463 requires that funding for the compensation program be subject to the uncertainties of the appropriations process. A guaranteed funding stream is a linchpin of a successful and meaningful compensation program. Without it, Congress is making a promise that it may not keep. A third problem with this legislation is that it limits eligibility for compensation for those people who are vaccinated within a short time period after the implementation of the program. This provision is not only vigorously opposed by all of the groups being asked to take the vaccine but also by the State and local officials running the vaccination program. I genuinely do not understand why the House leadership and the administration have decided to draw this line. The smallpox immunization program is not working. Everyone agrees that one of the reasons that there is not a compensation program in place to reassure nurses and firefighters and other first responders, that if they are injured by the vaccine, they and their families will be provided for, and the representatives of those organizations agree that the Republican bill is not enough to reassure their members. Those same representatives agree that the proposals made by the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) and some of the others of us who were working with her will succeed. It is very disappointing that the legislative process has been cut short and that the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) has been denied the chance, even the chance, to offer her amendment. Why are the leadership and the administration making this so hard? I do not have an answer to that question, but I do know what we need to do next. Let us defeat this bill, negotiate a reasonable one, and then move on to the genuinely tough problems facing our country. I would like to respond to the comparisons of H.R. 1463 with the Public Safety Officers Benefit program. This was alluded to by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin). This is a false comparison. The Public Safety Officers Benefit program is meant to supplement what police officers and others receive when injured in the line of duty. There are many other State and local programs that also provide compensation. In contrast, H.R. 1463 is the sole source of compensation for many health care workers and their contacts who may be injured. And let me emphasize that point. It is not just the first responders who may be injured, but the family members who may be injured as well, by the vaccine taken by the nurse or firefighter or police officer, because they can be subject to injury by exposure to the person who has been immunized. A true comparison would compare H.R. 1463 with other compensation programs. By a true comparison, H.R. 1463 is clearly not adequate. This bill provides far less than benefits provided to Americans injured by childhood vaccines in the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. H.R. 1463 provides far less than what Federal employees receive, civilian or military, if injured under the Federal Employee Compensation Act. And H.R. 1463 also provides far less than what Members of Congress can get if injured or disabled. If it is good enough for Members of this body, we should not hesitate to provide it to those Americans on the front lines of any bioterrorist attack who are protecting all Americans. We are subject to compensation without caps. We ought to do the same for those who are standing up for all Americans should there be a terrorist attack of smallpox. People have told us they need to have a program that will counsel them and educate them, because some people should not be immunized at all. But there is no such provision for that kind of screening mechanism, an educational effort in the Republican bill, even though it would save money because people would not be immunized if they knew they might be at a high risk. And people have told us that if they are going to be asked to be at risk, we ought to stand behind them. The Republican bill does not stand behind these first responders. This should be negotiated on a bipartisan basis, or at least let the House work its will. I urge our colleagues to vote against this H.R. 1463, defeat it on the suspension calendar and insist that we go back and work on legislation that will accomplish the purpose that all of us have in mind in providing legislation for such a Smallpox Emergency Personnel Protection Act. Mr. Speaker, I wish to provide for the Record two letters, one from the Service Employees International Union and one from the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, which I think further elaborates on this issue. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, Washington, DC, March 28, 2003. Dear Representative: On behalf of the 1.3 million members of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), including over 360,000 health care workers and first responders, we are writing to urge you to oppose H.R. 1463, introduced by Representative Richard Burr and scheduled on the suspension calendar for Monday, March 31. H.R. 1463 would establish a deeply flawed smallpox compensation program for health care workers and first responders injured by the smallpox vaccination. However, this legislation fails to safeguard the health and safety of workers asked to volunteer for the smallpox vaccination program. Moreover, the bill fails to address the concerns of workers who fear that a serious injury or death from the smallpox vaccine would lead to economic catastrophe for themselves and their families. While the Administration had hoped to vaccinate up to 10.5 million workers, only about 21,000 workers have been vaccinated thus far. Clearly, there has been a great reluctance among health care workers and first responders to risk the loss of health and income without an adequate safety net for themselves and their families. While the legislation is premised on the assumption that workers will be eligible for workers' compensation in the event of an injury, the reality is that, in most states, workers cannot depend on this. In fact, there are only 14 states where it appears at all certain that claims for benefits will be honored by the state workers' compensation system. Therefore, workers in most states who are permanently and totally disabled will be eligible only for this bill's maximum lump sum payment of $262,100. This represents about five years' wages for the average nurse--not enough to sustain an individual or family over a lifetime. For a worker who suffers partial or temporary disability, the benefit is also capped at $262,100 over a lifetime. Health care workers and first responders who suffer injuries that limit their ability to earn a living must be compensated at a level that reflects their reduced earnings capability for the duration of their injury. If the aim of the legislation is to encourage workers to be vaccinated, H.R. 1463 will not do the job. Workers will continue to be reluctant to be vaccinated in the absence of assurances that they will not face economic ruin should they become injured. While the bill provides medical benefits for the treatment of injuries or illnesses, it does not provide medical benefits for rehabilitation, palliative care or long term care that may be needed. This is a significant gap in health coverage for workers asked to risk their health. Another significant flaw in the bill is that funding for compensation and medical benefits are not mandatory. Workers who have lost their health and livelihood should not have to wage a fight for compensation each year during the appropriations process. The legislation fails to ensure that the smallpox program will be carried out safely, in stark contrast to the program in place for military personnel. The bill does not require that health departments make medical tests, such as pregnancy tests, available to workers in order to screen out those who ought not to be vaccinated. The legislation also fails to include requirements for monitoring those who are vaccinated to catch adverse reactions before they develop into life threatening complications, similar to the military plan. There is also no funding for state and local public health departments to carry out this expensive program safely. The legislation also fails to include a table of injuries that ensure that workers will be awarded compensation quickly. After years of experience with the smallpox vaccine, there are injuries, that occur within specific time periods, that are known to be caused by the vaccine. This schedule of injuries must be included to ensure that compensation will be quick and certain. Otherwise, workers cannot be certain before receiving the vaccine that the most likely serious injuries will qualify for compensation. We also object to the bill's requirement that workers receive the vaccination within 180 days of the date regulations are issued. Any worker that is vaccinated under the Secretary's declaration must be eligible for federal compensation. It is punitive to deny compensation to a worker who opts to participate at a later date. H.R. 1463 is deeply flawed. We strongly urge you to oppose this bill. Sincerely, Charles M. Loveless, Director of Legislation.

Mr. WAXMAN. That may well work, but again we have another example of trying to say no more than a certain amount. And it may be adequate, but let us be generous to our colleagues and let us be generous to the first responders.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding this time to me. The administration has asked people to take this immunization in the health care area and first responders have not been doing it. One of the reasons, according to the Institute of Medicine, is because they do not feel that they are going to be backed up by the government when they take the risk of some adverse event. Now, I want to point out to my good friend, the gentleman from Louisiana, the chairman of the committee, that he should not personalize this whole matter and have it on his conscience that we cannot pass this bill today. Of course, this could have come under the rules and we could have had opportunity for amendments to consider. But I want to point out that we asked for smallpox compensation as part of the bioterrorism bill in 2001, we asked for smallpox compensation as part of the homeland security bill in 2002, we formally requested an administration proposal in December 2002, and we proposed our own bill in February of this year. Only in March, 2 weeks ago, did the majority respond. And now, of course, it is take it or leave it. Take it or leave it. That is what we are being told. This is a bad policy and a bad process by which to protect the public health. We had negotiations by staff. It might have helped for Members to sit down and talk this through. And if Members and staff cannot agree, then we have committees and subcommittees to consider the details of legislation. And if it is too urgent for committees and subcommittees to act after all this time, at least let the House consider a bill and consider various alternatives. I think we are now engaged in a very bad process, and I think that we are being asked to take very bad policy that is going to be self- defeating. Because if many of the nurses do not want it, and the firefighters do not want it, and the police members do not want it, and other first responders do not feel it is adequate and they are not going to be compensated, then we are not accomplishing the goal that we should for all of us.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. In October, 1998, this body passed a bill to establish a commemoration of the centennial of powered flight and the achievements of the Wright brothers. The commemoration activities set forth in that bill will come to fruition this year with the Festival of Flight. The Festival of Flight will consist of four events that will be held nationwide to celebrate Wilbur and Orville Wright's first flight. Wilbur and Orville Wright manned the first successful controlled and sustained powered flight. The Wright brothers, originally bicycle store owners from Dayton, Ohio, moved to Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, for the hills, strong and steady winds, and the soft-sanded ground, ingredients for a successful flight. They went back to Dayton and built a 6-foot wind tunnel to conduct experiments with over 200 different wing models. They developed the first reliable tables on the effects of air pressure on curved surfaces. The principles that we use today and that we see on every airplane were the very principles that they explored. In 1903 the Wright brothers completed the construction of a larger plane powered by their own lightweight gas-powered engine and returned to Kitty Hawk. On December 17, 1903, four men and a boy witnessed the first flight, a flight which dramatically changed the course of transportation, commerce, communication, and warfare throughout the world. I hope that the Festival of Flight will educate Americans to the achievements of the Wright brothers and their contributions to the development of this Nation. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the author of the proposal before us, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge), to speak in support of the concurrent resolution before us.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre), one of the co-sponsors of this legislation.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As ranking member of the House Committee on Government Reform, I join my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) in the consideration of H.R. 1505, a bill which names a U.S. postal facility located at 2127 Beatties Ford Road in Charlotte, North Carolina after Jim Richardson. This bill was introduced by our friend and colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), on March 27, 2003. For the benefit of my colleagues, H.R. 1505 has met the committee cosponsorship requirement and has the support and sponsorship of the entire North Carolina State congressional delegation. Mr. James Franklin Richardson, Sr., was born in Charlotte, North Carolina in 1926. After attending elementary and high school in Charlotte, Mr. Richardson went on to join the United States Navy and fought in World War II. After receiving an honorable discharge from the Navy, Mr. Richardson attended and graduated from Johnson C. Smith University with a bachelor of science degree in physical education and general science. Upon graduation, Mr. Richardson began a 33-year career with the United States Postal Service. During his tenure with the Postal Service, Jim Richardson served as a service clerk and a postal supervisor. He spent his last 8 years with the Postal Service as postmaster in Mount Holly, North Carolina. Before he retired, Jim Richardson had received a Certificate of Appreciation from the Service, in ``Recognition of Exceptional Performance in the Interest of Improved Postal Service.'' In 1985, Jim was elected to the North Carolina House of Representatives where he served one 2-year term before being elected to the North Carolina Senate. He served 4 terms in the Senate before he retired and was elected to the Mecklenburg County Commission where he served for 6 years. During his years in public service, Jim Richardson was known for operating in a bipartisan manner and working hard to improve and promote his community. He always held true to his convictions and continued to fight the good fight. This fight continues today as Jim battles against cancer. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Danny Davis), the ranking member of the Postal Task Force, for getting this bill to the House Floor. I also commend my colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) for seeking to honor the incredible contributions made by Jim Richardson to his community, and I urge the swift passage of this measure. Mr. Speaker, we have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Republican budget resolution. There are many reasons to oppose this budget, but I am going to concentrate on just one. This resolution quite simply pays for tax cuts that benefit the wealthy by cutting programs for seniors and disabled people who are most in need of help in meeting their medical expenses. The original version of this resolution was quite explicit: it required massive cuts in both the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Facing an uproar from beneficiaries and providers alike, what have our Republican colleagues done. They have responded by concentrating all of the cuts on Medicaid, the program that serves the neediest seniors and disabled beneficiaries, as well as millions of poor children. They think they can fool people by doing this. But millions of America's seniors--widows living on Social Security, people in nursing homes, seniors living on modest budgets--are totally dependent on the additional assistance they get from Medicaid so Medicare can work for them. They know what these cuts mean. They need the help they get with their Medicare premiums and cost-sharing. They need Medicaid coverage of prescription drugs. And they know that Medicaid is the only source of payment for long- term care services--both nursing home care and home and community based services. It is Medicaid payments that nursing homes rely on--to pay staff, to maintain quality, to provide services. Medicaid is a critical payer for hospitals, community health centers, clinics and providers that serve the disabled, the low-income, the uninsured, and seniors. Two-thirds of the dollars we spend in Medicaid go to seniors and disabled people, the very same population served by Medicare. These beneficiaries need both programs. And we all know our States are in desperate need of additional funds to maintain Medicaid coverage and services. This budget responds to this crisis by slashing Medicaid instead of helping, by turning our backs on millions of disabled people, kids, and low-income seniors instead of assisting them. This budget responds with a proposed cut in Medicaid twice as big as any reduction made by any previous Congress. The Republicans have responded to the charge that they were financing their tax cuts on the backs of seniors and the disabled by financing them on the backs of the POOR seniors and disabled. This budget will cripple our States, it will add to the numbers of uninsured, and it will be devastating for millions of Medicare beneficiaries who need extra help. If the majority passes this budget, it will show the true colors of the Republican party. It will show a lack of caring for the most vulnerable of our seniors, for the disabled, for poor kids and their moms, for the institutions in this country who try to deliver health care to them, and to the States that are struggling to provide for them. We should defeat this budget. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am going to put a longer statement in the Record, but I want to say this, that this bill is a flawed approach. It has a one-size-fits-all approach to every State, and it ought to be up to the States to decide how to deal with these issues. California has a law that California's legislature adopted. But California and other States have jurisdiction over liability laws and licensure of medical professionals and disciplining those who are conducting malpractice. We ought not to take this whole thing over here in Washington. States ought to be able to adopt their own laws. Secondly, the tort laws are to serve two purposes. First, to make people whole who are injured. By putting a cap on damages, it denies individuals the ability to be made whole through the court system. Secondly, the idea of the tort law is to deter future malpractice, and I am afraid we are not going to deter future malpractice by this legislation. I want to lastly point out, this bill goes beyond California law. It gives special treatment to HMOs, to pharmaceutical manufacturers and medical device manufacturers in a way that is completely inappropriate through an FDA approval process that then insulates them from liability for punitive damages, which I think is way out of line and wrong. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill because it is fundamentally flawed and will do far more harm than good. It imposes a one-size fits all solution on every state. It imposes arbitrary caps on liability that defeat the purpose of compensatory and punitive damages. It gives legal protections that go far beyond the legitimate needs of doctors, benefiting profitable pharmaceuticals, HMOs, and insurance companies. And to add insult to injury, all of this comes at the expense of the injured victims of medical malpractice. States have traditionally handled every aspect of the medical malpractice insurance problem, and are better equipped than the federal government to respond to skyrocketing insurance premiums in some areas of the country. States establish the applicable standards of care for health care professionals and are responsible for their licensure. States are responsible for boards of discipline and criminal laws to deter and punish professional misconduct. States are responsible for the rules governing lawsuits and the functioning of their civil justice system. And states are responsible for the regulation of the insurance industry. Like the State of California, which the supporters of this legislation hold up as a model for the country, other states are perfectly capable of enacting appropriate liability and insurance reform. This bill, however, establishes a one-size-fits-all solution on the entire country and overrides state laws. For example, if this bill is enacted, states cannot elect to have a longer statute of limitations. States cannot opt out of liability caps. States cannot choose to inform juries of caps on liability or impose the traditional rule of joint and several liability. States cannot allow punitive damages in cases involving drugs and medical devices approved by the FDA. H.R. 5 also takes the wrong approach to tort damages, which are designed to make victims of medical malpractice whole and punish those who have engaged in egregious misconduct. H.R. 5 allows unlimited recovery for objectively quantifiable damages, such as lost wages or medical bills, but it caps non-economic damages at $250,000. Non- economic damages are difficult to quantify, but they nonetheless compensate victims for real injuries such pain and suffering, the loss of the child, the loss of a limb, or permanent disfigurement. This bill's cap of $250,000 is clearly not enough to make victims whole in every case. H.R. 5 also takes the wrong approach to punitive damages, which are capped at two times the amount of economic damages or $250,000. Many wrongdoers protected by this bill--including HMOs, insurance companies, and pharmaceuticals--could absorb such a penalty with absolutely no impact on their bottom line. This defeats the very purpose of punitive damages in our system of justice, which is to punish wrongdoers and deter future misconduct. In addition to these problems, this bill is a blatant give-away to special interests. It conspicuously ignores the business practices of insurance companies, which are certainly a cause--if not the primary cause--of the medical malpractice insurance crisis. And the bill gives special liability protection to large, profitable corporations such as MHOs and the manufacturers, suppliers, and distributors of drugs and medical devices. While these corporations have been major contributors to the Republican party, they have done little else to make a case for the protections they've won in H.R. 5. I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, March 2003 is 60 years after March 1943. The measure of Stanley J. Robinson's life is that during the month he will celebrate his 83rd birthday as well as his 60th wedding anniversary. He and wife Karlyn will remember that it was only 25 days after that wedding date of March 2, 1943, that he shipped out to war. The most important china at the wedding was not the porcelain but an assignment to fly across Africa in his B-24 with his crewmates to China. Stanley is part of what Tom Brokaw has described as ``The Greatest Generation.'' Born in Baltimore, Stanley was a bombardier at 23 in and participated in 75 combat missions against Imperial Japan. He was credited with downing a Japanese Zero fighter plane. He was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross and the Air Medal. Stanley takes pride in the fact that his B-24 did not lose a single person to enemy action, though attacked many times. Stanley has always said that every day after his return from war is a bonus. He has lived his life with that philosophy, with zest, thoughtfulness, and care for others. In his retirement years he has for the past 18 years served as a volunteer at the Sibley Hospital. In Judaism, a tradition also exists to mark time beyond expectation. At 83, Stanley will have a Second Bar Mitzvah at the Washington Hebrew Congregation and in the presence of family and friends. On March 8, 2003, he will be called to the Torah. His First Bar Mitzvah was in 1933, at 13 when a child assumes the religious obligations of a man. The informal tradition of the Second Bar Mitzvah is based upon the biblical measure of a life span, 70 years, as Psalm 90:10 says, ``The days of our years are threescore years and ten, or even by reason of strength fourscore years; yet is their pride but travail and vanity; for it is speedily gone, and we fly away.'' This extension of life beyond the biblical expectation, the thirteenth anniversary year after 70, may be observed as an occasion for celebration. Stanley Robinson and Karlyn David met when he was 17 and she was 15. It was immediately after Yom Kippur and on a street corner in Baltimore, whose precise location is now part of family lore. World War II came. He was in uniform as an officer in the U.S. Army Air Force when they were married six years later, March 2, 1943. They were a handsome pair then and remain so today. He has a full head of pure white hair. Stanley J. Robinson has deep roots in this area. He has lived in three neighborhoods within the District of Columbia since moving here after the end of World War II. He was in business in the District of Columbia until his retirement at age 65. He was President of Union Wallpaper and Paint Company, which was founded by his father-in-law, Charles David, and operated in the District of Columbia and the suburbs for 50 years. At various times, it had stores downtown on New York Avenue and in Spring Valley, as well as Rockville, Silver Spring, and Alexandria. Union Wallpaper was, during the 1980s, sold to Duron Paint Company, where Stanley was a vice president and also served as president of Duron's Potomac Wallcovering. Stanley and Karlyn have three daughters, six grandchildren, and two granddaughters-in-law. All three daughters went through high school in the District of Columbia. Their oldest daughter Ellen Robinson Epstein, an oral historian and professional organizer, and her husband David Epstein, an attorney, reside in Chevy Chase. Four of the five Epstein children--Jeremy, Asher, Barak, Dina, and Kira--and two daughters-in- law, Tamar and Julie--reside in the Washington metropolitan area. They are involved in a wide range of activities including working for Microsoft, attending the Robert H. Smith School of Business at the University of Maryland, student teaching in the DC public schools as part of a graduate program in education at GW, working for Hillel International in D.C., and practicing law. One Epstein daughter is an Admissions Officer at Columbia University and the other daughter is a student at the University of Rochester. The other Robinson daughters are Lynn Rosenfeld, a PhD graduate from the University of Chicago who, with her daughter Hannah, lives in Birmingham. Susan Robinson Levy and her husband Sol have each had careers as producers at ABC television and reside in New York City.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, 104 years ago today, on February 27, 1899, the man who would make one of the most important discoveries in modern medicine was born in the town of West Pembroke, Maine. His name was Charles H. Best, and he would help identify insulin, the treatment that has saved the lives of millions of diabetics around the world. Let us not celebrate Dr. Best's birthday today by voting to block scientific research that aims to cure diabetes in our lifetime. The bill before the House is called the Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2003. This legislation could also be named the Impede Stem Cell Research Act of 2003. This proposal would bar the creation of some of the stem cells that our Nation's top scientists believe could help cure many devastating diseases. The National Institutes of Health, for example, has found that stem cells can be coaxed into producing insulin, offering a possible cure for diabetes. According to the NIH, stem cells may also help restore lost function to people who are paralyzed and may strengthen the heart muscles of people who have had severe heart attacks. There are several ways to make stem cells. One of the most promising ways uses a patient's own DNA via a process called therapeutic cloning. The National Academy of Sciences has found that this approach offers great potential to obtain stem cells to treat many diseases, including Alzheimer's, cancer, autoimmune disorders, rheumatoid arthritis. Countries around the world, including the United Kingdom, have not only found this research to be promising, but are planning to invest in it. Not the United States. In the summer of 2001, President Bush told the American people that he would permit Federal funding of research on 64 existing stem cell lines. Today, the NIH says that just 9 are actually available to researchers. President Bush's decision did not strike a fair balance. To the contrary, it has starved promising research to satisfy an ideological agenda. The legislation before us would actually criminalize stem cell research based on therapeutic cloning. Does it make any sense to lock up scientists who are seeking cures for diseases? Not even a majority of President Bush's handpicked Ethics Advisory Committee reached the conclusion that the creation of stem cells through therapeutic cloning is unethical. Yet this bill would treat scientists trying to save lives as if they were drug dealers. There is a far better alternative. We will have before us a substitute amendment. It would outlaw cloning of human embryos for the purpose of producing a child. That issue is not in dispute. But the substitute would not also stop promising microscopic stem cell research. This substitute strikes a balance that respects both the sanctity of life and the needs of the living. A similar balance was struck recently in California law passed to encourage life-saving research using stem cells. I urge my colleagues to remember Dr. Best's birthday today. Insulin transformed medicine over the past century. We should give scientists the tools and room to make new miracles in the next one.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, on February 12, I gave a statement on the floor discussing the serious implications of GAO's decision to drop its lawsuit seeking access to the Vice President's energy task force records. Since then, I have received a letter from the Comptroller General responding to my remarks and asking that I make the press release that GAO issued when he decided to drop the lawsuit a part of the Record. In accordance with his request, I would like to make both his response and the press release a part of the Record. General Accounting Office, Washington, DC, February 19, 2003. Hon. Henry A. Waxman, House of Representatives. Dear Mr. Waxman: I am writing in connection with your floor statement of February 12 concerning my recent decision not to appeal the district court decision in the Walker v. Cheney case. I appreciate your inserting my recent letter to you in the record and believe that it addresses several important issues. At the same time, I would respectfully request that you consider inserting my related press statement of February 7, 2003, into the record if you have the opportunity to do so. I have enclosed another copy of that statement with this letter. There are three aspects of your floor statement that are of concern to me. First, as you know, we do not believe that failure to appeal the district court decision precludes us from filing suit against another executive branch party in connection with a different matter in the future. Second, while I did solicit input from a wide range of Congressional leaders from both parties before I made my decision the decision was mine. I was not directed, threatened or unduly pressured to take the action that I did. Just as in the case of my decision to file suit a year ago, my latest decision was based on what I felt was the right thing to do based on all the facts that were available to me. In addition, the input that I did receive was not divided along party lines and there was significant bi-partisan support for my decision not to appeal. Finally, my decision to seek a vote by at least a full committee of jurisdiction prior to any possible future legal action to obtain records is one that I believe is both prudent and appropriate, given my experience as Comptroller General and in light of the recent district court decision. Specifically, if we are ever ``stonewalled'' again in connection with a matter that in my professional and independent judgment we should pursue, I would formally request that an appropriate committee of jurisdiction vote regarding whether they would support a related court action. I can assure you that my related recommendation would be based on the merits of the case and not partisan considerations. I look forward to continuing to work with you in the future on issues of mutual interest and concern. Sincerely yours, David M. Walker, Comptroller General of the United States. Enclosure.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, as the Ranking member of the House Committee on Government Reform, I join Chairman Tom Davis, Representative John McHugh and Subcommittee Ranking member, Representative Danny K. Davis, in introducing the ``Postal Civil Service Retirement System Funding Reform Act of 2003.'' The legislation we introduced today corrects the calculation of the Postal Service's contributions to its pension fund and provides immediate and needed financial relief to the Postal Service. It allows the Postal Service to reduce its debt and hold off on rate increases until at least 2006. It does this by crediting the Postal Service for the real value of contributions it made in the past and changing how contributions will be computed in the future. This legislation is being introduced quickly because, without it, the Postal Service faces an increasing financial crisis. The Postal Service has suggested that, in the absence of such a change, a rate increase will be necessary within a year. While there is a need for action to be taken quickly, the issue requires more measured consideration than we are able to give it in this short time. That is why the bill includes a mechanism for Congress to revisit this issue. The bill requires the Postal Service to report on the ways in which the savings can best be used so that Congress can make an informed decision on such use. Given the many serious concerns about the Postal Service's future obligations, our legislation is only the first step in addressing much larger problems. The legislation that we introduced today, however, is not perfect and we are still working on areas of disagreement. For instance, the bill requires the Postal Service to pay the pension costs associated with military service both before and after the change from the old Post Office Department to the new Postal Service. I do not believe this is a good idea; I am not convinced that the Postal Service, which is supposed to run like a private business, should be paying the costs of military service for employees in the Civil Service Retirement System. I am confident we will continue to be able to work together to resolve this important issue. In closing, I want to commend Chairman Davis, Rep. McHugh, and Rep. Danny Davis for their efforts in addressing this problem and for working in a bipartisan manner. The Postal Service faces many challenges and I look forward to working together on strengthening our nation's Postal Service.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, last Friday, February 7, the General Accounting Office abandoned its efforts to obtain basic records about the operations of the White House task force on energy policy. This action received only limited attention, and few people fully understand its profound consequences. When we have divided government, the public can expect Congress to conduct needed oversight over the Executive Branch. But today we are living in an era of one-party control. This means the House and the Senate aren't going to conduct meaningful oversight of the Bush Administration. When there is one-party control of both the White House and Congress, there is only one entity that can hold the Administration accountable . . . and that is the independent General Accounting Office. But now GAO has been forced to surrender this fundamental independence. When GAO decided not to appeal the district court decision in Walker v. Cheney, it crossed a divide. In the Comptroller General's words, GAO will now require ``an affirmative statement of support from at least one full committee with jurisdiction over any records access matter prior to any future court action by GAO.'' Translated, what this means is that GAO will bring future actions to enforce its rights to documents only with the blessing of the majority party in Congress. This is a fundamental shift in our systems of check and balances. For all practical purposes, the Bush Administration is now immune from effective oversight by any body in Congress. Some people say GAO should never have brought legal action to obtain information about the energy task force headed by Vice President Cheney. But in reality, GAO had no choice. The Bush Administration's penchant for secrecy has been demonstrated time and again. The Department of Justice has issued a directive curtailing public access to information under the Freedom of Information Act. The White House has restricted access to presidential records. The Administration has refused to provide information about the identity of over 1,000 individuals detained in the name of homeland security. The White House deliberately picked this fight with GAO because it wants to run the government in secret. GAO's efforts to obtain information about the Cheney task force began with a routine request. The task force was formed in January 2001 to make recommendations about the nation's energy future. During the course of the task force's deliberations, the press reported that major campaign contributors had special access to the task force while environmental organizations, consumer groups, and the public were shut out. Rep. Dingell, the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and I felt that Congress and the public had the right to know whether and to what extent the task force's energy recommendations may have been influenced by well-connected outside parties. Accordingly, we asked GAO to obtain some basic information on the energy task force's operations, such as who was present at each meeting of the task force, who were the professional staff, who did the Vice President and task force staff meet with, and what costs were incurred as part of the process. We did not request, and GAO did not seek, information on internal communications. From the start, the White House assumed a hostile and uncompromising position, arguing that GAO's investigation ``would unconstitutionally interfere with the functioning of the Executive Branch.'' Stand-offs between Congress and the White House are not new, of course. Typically, they are resolved through hard bargaining and compromise. But the White House made clear that it wasn't willing to bargain or to compromise. Even when GAO voluntarily scaled back its request--dropping its request for minutes and notes--the Vice President's office was intransigent. The White House's contempt for legitimate congressional requests for information was apparent even in the one area in which it conceded GAO's authority. The Vice President acknowledged that GAO was entitled to review the costs associated with the task force. However, the only information he provided to GAO about costs were 77 pages of random documents. Some of the pages consisted of simply numbers or dollar amounts without an explanation of what the money was for; other pages consisted only of a drawing of cellular or desk phones. Without an explanation--which the Administration refused to provide, of course the information was utterly useless. The statutes governing GAO's authority spell out an elaborate process which the agency must follow before initiating any litigation against the Executive Branch. The statute even gives the White House authority to block litigation by certifying that disclosure ``reasonably could be expected to impair substantially the operations of the Government.'' In this case, GAO followed the letter and the spirit of that statute, even giving the White House an opportunity to file a certification. But the White House position was that GAO had no right even to ask for documents. Faced with an Administration that had no interest in reaching an accommodation, GAO was left with a stark choice: GAO could drop the matter, effectively conceding the White House's position that it was immune from oversight, or it could invoke its statutory authority to sue the Executive Branch. Reluctantly, on February 22, 2002, GAO filed its first-ever suit against the Executive Branch to obtain access to information. It's not hard to figure out why the White House was so eager to pick a fight with GAO. After all, GAO provides the muscle for Congress' oversight function. Over the past century, Congress has increasingly turned to GAO to monitor and oversee an Executive Branch that has ballooned in size and strength. Moreover, because it has earned a reputation for fairness and independence, GAO is particularly threatening to an Administration that doesn't want to be challenged on any front. GAO's effort failed at the trial level. In December, the district court in the case issued a sweeping decision in favor of the Bush Administration, ruling that GAO has no standing to sue the Executive Branch. The judge who wrote the decision was a recent Bush appointee who served as a deputy to Ken Starr during the independent counsel investigation of the Clinton Administration. The judge's reasoning contorted the law, and it ignored both Supreme Court and appellate court precedent recognizing GAO's right to use the courts to enforce its statutory rights to information. This brings us to last week. Before deciding whether to pursue an appeal, the Comptroller General consulted with congressional leaders. He found no support among Republican leaders for an appeal. And he decided not to appeal. The judge's ruling raised major institutional issues about Congress' power to investigate the Executive Branch. But Republican leaders put party ahead of the institution and partisanship ahead of principle. The hypocrisy about this issue on the Republican side is simply breathtaking. During the 1990s, it was Republicans in Congress who embarked on a concerted effort to undermine the authority of the President. Congressional committees spent over $15 million investigating the White House. They demanded--and received--information on the innermost workings of the White House. They subpoenaed top White House officials to testify about the advice they gave the President. They forced the White House to disclose internal White House documents--memos, e-mails, phone records, even lists of guests at White House movie showings. And they launched countless GAO investigations into everything from President Clinton's Health Care Task Force to his working group on China Permanent Normal Trade Relations. And if the White House resisted, these same leaders insisted that Congress and the public's right to know was paramount. Defending his numerous demands for White House records, for example, Rep. Dan Burton insisted on the House floor that ``public disclosure of the facts is the essence and in large part the purpose of congressional oversight. The American people have a right to know the facts.'' And other Republican leaders reiterated this message over and over again on countless television talk shows. But now that President Bush and Vice President Cheney are in office, suddenly these priorities have changed. Oversight is no longer a priority. In fact, it's something to be avoided at all costs, including sacrificing the independence of GAO. Even when GAO asks for the most basic information--what private interests met with a White House task force--the answer is that GAO is not entitled to ask these questions. By pressuring GAO to accept a badly flawed court decision, Republican leaders placed expediency over principle. In the short term, they will get what they want--a Bush White House that is accountable to no one. In the long term, however, they have done lasting damage to the balance of powers between Congress and the White House. Consider this irony: In their eagerness to undermine the Clinton White House, Republicans in Congress tried to tear down the presidency. Now, in their eagerness to protect the Bush White House, they are willing to tear down Congress. The implications of GAO's decision not to appeal are enormous. Without a realistic threat of legal action, GAO loses most of its leverage. In effect, the agency's ability to conduct effective independent investigations is emasculated. And in the process, core American values of open government and accountable leaders have been sacrificed. The Comptroller General has stated that his decision not to appeal will have little impact on the day-to-day operations of GAO. There is some truth to this. Much of what GAO does every day are routine audits of government programs that virtually everyone supports. GAO will be able to continue this routine work. And if a Republican-controlled committee ever urges GAO to pursue a controversial investigation of the Bush Administration, GAO may be able to do this. But don't hold your breath. What has been lost, however, is something very precious: it is GAO's ability to be more than an auditor of government books. To truly serve Congress and the American people, GAO needs the ability to take on important assignments even if they are not supported by the majority party, and it needs the authority to carry them out effectively even if they are controversial. This essential independence is now gone. For the first time in its history, GAO's shield of nonpartisanship has been pierced. In this new world, partisan considerations matter. Congressional Republicans can dictate GAO action; congressional Democrats can't. That is a sea change in GAO's mission. In the last eight years, some of our most important congressional powers have been misused for partisan purposes. We've seen the power to subpoena documents or individuals abused and twisted beyond recognition. The power to immunize witnesses was trivialized. The power to hold officials in contempt became a cheap political tool. And the power to impeach a President was reduced to a campaign strategy. Now the General Accounting Office, with its well-deserved reputation for superb work, becomes the latest casualty of partisanship. We are losing something very special here, and it is slipping away almost without notice. I ask unanimous consent to insert three short documents into the Record. They are an exchange of correspondence with the Comptroller General on this issue and a fact sheet on the Walker v. Cheney case that my staff has prepared.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to enhance the ability of the United States to respond to a terrorist attack that uses the lethal smallpox virus. This legislation establishes a program to compensate those injured by the smallpox vaccine. It also contains provisions to assist state efforts against smallpox and to protect health care workers and their employers during the vaccination campaign. I am introducing this bill today to begin a dialogue that I hope will culminate in the quick passage of legislation. This is not a partisan issue. I know that all members of the House and Senate are committed to protecting the American public from potential bioterrorist threats. I look forward to working with members from both the Republican and Democratic parties and with the Administration to develop a bipartisan solution. I hope that my ideas, as outlined in this legislation, can provide a starting place for discussion. Three weeks ago, President Bush launched a national program to vaccinate millions of healthcare workers against smallpox in order to protect the United States in case of a bioterrorist attack. To date, the number of those vaccinated is far lower than anticipated. According to press accounts, about one thousand health care workers have been vaccinated, despite an initial goal of about 500,000 in the first month. According to public health officials, one reason for this gap is that health care workers are concerned about the risks of the smallpox vaccine itself. About one out of every million people who receive the vaccine will die, and several others will suffer severe medical complications, including brain damage, blindness, and significant scarring. Serious injury can occur even among people who have never been vaccinated, but who come into close contact with someone who has recently received the vaccine. The homeland security bill passed last fall limited the liability of hospitals, doctors, and vaccine manufacturers for injuries caused by the smallpox vaccine. However, the legislation did not provide compensation to those who are injured. I have heard from public health officials and vaccination experts that many health care workers are understandably reluctant to accept a vaccine to protect the public while being forced to face the consequences of an adverse reaction alone. These consequences can include large medical bills, lost income, pain and suffering, and death. There can be no doubt that a compensation program is urgently needed. Some have suggested that existing workers compensation programs can cover those vaccinated in case of injury. This approach is not adequate. It is clear that some state programs do not cover vaccine injuries at all, others provide insufficient compensation, and not one covers those who fall ill from contact with someone who has received the vaccine. Health insurance may also fall short. Some insurers have threatened not to cover smallpox vaccine injuries. And some volunteers or contacts who get injured by the vaccine may not have health insurance at all. Aside from the lack of compensation for vaccine injury, there are other impediments to the smallpox vaccination effort. States are straining under the weight of their usual public health responsibilities and need additional funding. Volunteers who need immediate medical care because of a smallpox vaccine reaction may not be able to afford it, and those volunteers who fall ill for a few days with common local reactions to the vaccine may lose wages while recovering. The legislation I am introducing today addresses these problems. My goal is the same as the President's: to enhance the ability of the United States to defend against a bioterrorist attack. I believe that changes in the law are urgently needed to achieve this goal. First, the bill establishes a no-fault compensation program for those injured by the smallpox vaccine modeled on the successful program for children injured by routine immunizations. This system is fair, efficient, and less litigious than the traditional court system. Most importantly, a compensation program will provide real security to health care workers and their families in case of injury and will remove a major impediment to the vaccination effort. Second, the bill would provide grants to states to pay for their vaccination programs, including education and testing for medical conditions that are risk factors for severe reactions to the smallpox vaccine. Third, the bill would provide states full funding to pay for the immediate medical care of any health care worker or first responder injured by the vaccine, or anyone injured by coming into contact with someone who has been recently vaccinated. Timely medical attention can help to prevent the most serious complications of adverse reactions from ever developing. Fourth, the bill would prohibit discrimination against any worker who refuses to be vaccinated. Fifth, the bill would permit up to four days of paid leave for health care workers who experience transient but significant local reactions. Employers can obtain reimbursement for this expense from the compensation program. Each of these provisions will support our nation's preparations for a smallpox attack. In the coming days, I look forward to a productive legislative exchange to assure that these issues are quickly addressed.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, last Friday, February 7, the General Accounting Office abandoned its efforts to obtain basic records about the operation of the Vice President's Task Force on Energy Policy. This action received only limited attention, and few people fully understand its profound consequences. When we have divided government, the public can expect Congress to conduct needed oversight over the executive branch. But today we are living in an era of one-party control. This means the House and the Senate are not going to conduct meaningful oversight of the Bush administration. When there is one-party control of both the White House and Congress, there is only one entity that can hold the administration accountable, and that is the independent General Accounting Office. But now GAO has been forced to surrender this fundamental independence. When GAO decided not to appeal the District Court decision in Walker v. Cheney, it made a fateful decision. In the Comptroller General's words, GAO will now require ``an affirmative statement of support from at least one full committee with jurisdiction over any records they seek to access prior to any future court action by GAO.'' Translated, what this means is that GAO will bring future actions to enforce its rights to documents only with the blessings of the majority party in Congress. This is a fundamental shift in our system of checks and balances. For all practical purposes, the Bush administration is now immune from effective oversight by the Congress. Some people say GAO should never have brought legal action to obtain information about the energy task force, but in reality GAO had no choice. The Bush administration's penchant for secrecy has been demonstrated time and time again. The Department of Justice has issued a directive curtailing public access to information under the Freedom of Information Act. The White House has restricted access to Presidential records. The administration has refused to provide information about the identity of over 1,000 individuals detained in the name of homeland security. The White House deliberately picked this fight with GAO in order to secure its power to run the government in secret. From the start, the White House assumed a hostile and uncompromising position, arguing that GAO's investigation ``would unconstitutionally interfere with the functioning of the executive branch.'' Even when GAO voluntarily scaled back its request, dropping its demand for minutes and notes, the Vice President's office was intransigent. Faced with an administration that had no interest in reaching an accommodation, GAO was left with no choice. Reluctantly on February 22, 2002, GAO filed its first-ever lawsuit against the executive branch to obtain access to information. In December, the district court in the case issued a sweeping decision in favor of the Bush administration, ruling that GAO had no standing to sue the executive branch. The judge in the case was a recent Bush appointee who served as a deputy to Ken Starr during the Independent Counsel investigation of the Clinton administration. The judge's reasoning contorted the law, and it ignored both Supreme Court and appellate court precedent recognizing GAO's right to use the courts to enforce its statutory rights to information. Before deciding whether to pursue an appeal, the Comptroller General consulted with congressional leaders. He found no support from Republican leaders for an appeal. This hypocrisy is simply breathtaking. During the 1990s, it was the Republicans in Congress who embarked on a concerted effort to undermine the authority of the President. Congressional committees spent over $15 million investigating the White House. They demanded and received information on the innermost workings of the White House. They subpoenaed top White House officials to testify about the advice they gave the President. They forced the White House to disclose internal White House documents, memos, e-mails, phone records, and even lists of guests at White House movie showings. They abused congressional powers, and they launched countless GAO investigations. But now that President Bush and Vice President Cheney are in office--

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 1 additional minute.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, because I want to make this point very clearly that now that the President is Bush and the Vice President is Cheney, suddenly the priorities of the Republicans have changed. Oversight is no longer of interest to them. In fact, it is something to be avoided at all costs, including sacrificing the independence of GAO. Even when GAO asked for the most basic information, what private interest met with the White House task force, the answer is that GAO is not entitled to ask these questions. Consider this irony. In their eagerness to undermine the Clinton White House, Republicans in Congress tried to tear down the Presidency. Now, in their eagerness to protect the Bush White House, they are willing to tear down Congress. The implications of GAO's decision are enormous when they decided not to appeal; and without a realistic threat of legal action, GAO loses most of its leverage. This is a sea change in GAO's mission. It is no longer fundamentally nonpartisan nor fundamentally independent. Mr. Speaker, I include for the record three short documents into the Record. They are an exchange of correspondence with the Comptroller General on this issue and a fact sheet on the Walker versus Cheney case that my staff has provided. Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Committee on Government Reform, Washington, DC, January 31, 2003. Hon. David M. Walker, Comptroller General, General Accounting Office, Washington,

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the extraordinary life and accomplishments of my former colleague Wayne Owens, who passed away unexpectedly in Israel on December 18. His death is a great loss to his family, his many friends, and our nation. His death is also a great loss to the cause of peace in the Middle East, an end to which he devoted much of his professional life. Wayne was fond of saying that President Carter had succeeded at Camp David by taking the leaders of Egypt and Israel each by the arm and refusing to let go until they had worked out their differences. His open admiration for the vision of these peace makers--and for their persistence--said much about his own values. Wayne believed that ordinary people with high ideals, integrity, and determination could work great changes for the good and resolve even the most intractable conflicts. He exemplified these virtues throughout his career with a deep religious faith and his characteristic exuberance, humility, and good humor. Throughout his eight years of service as a member of the House of Representatives, Wayne followed his convictions, even when they came at a high political cost. In his first term in Congress, for example, Wayne voted his conscience and supported articles of impeachment against President Nixon as a member of the House Judiciary Committee. In his conservative home state of Utah, this was an unpopular decision that probably cost him a victory in his 1974 bid for the U.S. Senate. Nevertheless, Wayne viewed his vote as one of the most important acts of his public life. When Wayne returned to the House in 1986, he continued to think and act with independence and vision. He fought to protect millions of acres of Utah wilderness. He stood firm to protect a woman's right to reproductive choice. He sought to put an end to nuclear testing, compensate the victims of radiation from past nuclear tests, and end the production and stockpiling of chemical weapons. He worked to reintroduce wolves to Yellowstone National Park. He struggled to liberate Syria's captive Jewish community. And above all, Wayne strived to advance the cause of peace in the Middle East. During his service in Congress, where he served on the Foreign Affairs Committee, and later as co-founder and president of the Center for Middle East Peace and Economic Cooperation, Wayne worked to support the fragile and often flagging peace process in the Middle East. He traveled frequently and developed close personal relationships with business and political leaders throughout the region. At times when ministers and heads of state found it difficult to communicate with one another directly, Wayne often shuttled back and forth and served as a back channel for information. Leaders such as former Secretary of State James Baker, former Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, and the late King Hussein of Jordan praised Wayne for his role in carrying such messages and noted that he had genuinely helped advance the interests of peace. Wayne's vision was to bind Arabs and Israelis together through a web of personal and financial relationships, develop the economic potential of the Middle East, and create a shared stake in political and economic stability. In the months preceding his death, Wayne undoubtedly saw that his goal remained elusive and the path difficult to follow. But despite this, I believe Wayne was never daunted and never discouraged. He soldiered on until the very end of his life, and I don't believe he would have had it any other way. We will miss Wayne and remember him for his vision, leadership, and commitment to peace.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), a very important member of our committee.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown). (Ms. BROWN of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar). (Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Civil Service, Census, and Agency Organization.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).