Henry Waxman

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I listened to the arguments on the other side from people for whom I have an enormous amount of respect. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) has been working on this issue for some time, and the gentlewoman from my own State of California (Mrs. Tauscher) has also been very involved in creating such a Department. I, too, have supported the idea of a Department for Homeland Security. But I think this bill creates so much bureaucracy and inefficiency that I fear that it will not accomplish its purpose. Primarily, what we should do is coordinate the activities of the FBI and the CIA. We know the history of the FBI and its problems. Problems such as Hansen, a double agent, and how the FBI pursued Wen Ho Lee. We know about the ongoing problems of coordinating between the FBI and the CIA. This bill does not do anything to enhance the cooperation between these two agencies. Instead of giving the White House the authority to review the budgets and to coordinate the activities of the agencies of government involved in defending our homeland, this bill takes all those agencies of government and puts them into a new Department. Now there has to be a new bureaucracy set up in this new Department with all these new employees who used to do other things in other agencies to try to make this whole thing work. The President was not originally for this Department. The idea came from Senator Lieberman, particularly, and others. Many of us argued there should be a Homeland Security Department with the power to streamline, not bureaucratize. One that would be limited. One that controlled the operations of our border agencies, immigration, customs. We ought to have something along those lines. One with the White House authority written into law. The President created an Office of Homeland Security and appointed Governor Ridge, but that office does not have the authority to make its decisions stick with other parts of the Federal Government bureaucracy. I, with all due respect, think this is a real problem with this bill. In addition, we have not heard anybody on the other side get up and defend the smallpox special interest provision, the protection for the manufacturers of the vaccine. No one has even raised that issue on the other side. It was not in any bill that passed the House nor was before the Senate. Suddenly it appears here, condemning people who are injured with the inability to sue if there was negligence on the part of a manufacturer of a vaccine. This is the ordinary way in which they can pursue those claims at the present time. Why is this special interest provision suddenly in this bill? Why is that here, without any opportunity to have it reviewed or analyzed? Why do we have provisions in this bill that protect the manufacturers who engage in negligent behavior when creating devices to be used for homeland security? I am troubled by the way this whole bill has been considered, and I would urge my colleagues to vote against the legislation.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I agree we need homeland security legislation. It is clear that the Federal Departments are not working together as they should to protect our Nation. Unfortunately, the bill that we are considering today has serious flaws. In fact, I think it may cause more problems than it solves. I want to show two charts to this body. Here is how our homeland security agencies are organized today. This one right here. You can see all the different Departments. And the next chart over here is how they will be organized after the new Department is created. We are getting more bureaucracy. We are doing so at a tremendous cost to the taxpayer. According to the Congressional Budget Office, just creating and managing the new Department will cost $4.5 billion, and this does not include any additional spending to make our Nation more secure against terrorist attacks. This bill gives the new Department a vast array of responsibilities that have nothing to do with homeland security, such as administering the national flood insurance program and cleaning up oil spills. This bloats the size of the bureaucracy and dilutes the Department's counterterrorism mission. At the same time, the bill has no effective mechanism to coordinate the activities of the new Department with those of the FBI and the CIA and the other agencies that continue to have major homeland security functions. I opposed this bill when it was before the House in July. I had hoped that it would be improved by a deliberative process before it was brought back for final passage, but instead we were given a massive new bill this morning that is being rushed through the House with no opportunity for deliberation and amendment. We do not even know the full implications of what we are doing in this bill. Now, I want to talk about one of the hidden provisions we found buried in this massive bill today. Section 304 severely restricts the abilities of persons killed or injured by the small pox vaccine to receive any form of compensation. In fact, if you do not take the vaccine, but are disfigured or blinded because of your contact with someone who did, your ability to receive compensation is severely curtailed. Now think about this for a minute. This was not in the House-passed bill. This was not in the bill considered on the Senate floor. Suddenly this bill appears with this provision in it. Now, I authored the vaccine compensation system that compensates children who may be injured when they get a vaccine where there is a bad result. But what we are saying in this hidden provision in the fine print is if you are hurt, you are out of luck. The vaccine manufacturer is going to be protected. The vaccine manufacturer for all practical purposes is going to be immune from liability. Now this may be a legitimate decision on which we can have a disagreement, but I would feel differently had it been brought up honestly, up front, debated. I cannot believe that more than 10 people in the Congress even know that this provision is in the bill to create a Department of Homeland Security. I feel that this is a special interest provision and should not have been brought up in this particular way. Another new provision reverses the policy adopted overwhelmingly by the House that prohibited the new Department from contracting with expatriate companies that have fled the United States to avoid paying their taxes. There was an overwhelming vote in the House, a bipartisan vote, to say to those companies that fled this Nation to act as if they are a foreign nation so they would not have to pay taxes would not be permitted to contract with the Department of Homeland Security. Well, now we got this bill and that provision is missing. Moreover, the most egregious special interest provisions from the House bill remain in this legislation. The bill gives immunity to companies that make faulty bomb detectors, gas masks, or other homeland security products even if they engage in intentional wrong doing. Can you imagine that? The bill also allows large campaign contributors to lobby the new Department for special favors in absolute secret. We used to have a Freedom of Information Act that could get this information out before the public, and now we have a new exception created to the Freedom of Information Act that would allow these secret negotiations. While the fine print of the bill contains loopholes and special amenities for corporate America, Federal workers take it on the chin. Their right to engage in collective bargaining is eliminated. They are no longer guaranteed the right to appeal grievances to the Merit System Protection Board. I do not know what we are thinking. This new Department, this new bureaucracy will not work without dedicated Federal workers. Yet this bill treats them like second-class citizens, and this bill also rebuffs the families of the victims of September 11. All they asked for was an independent commission to examine what happened on September 11. But although this commission won overwhelming bipartisan support in the Senate, it was suddenly dropped from the bill. There is an old adage that those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it, but that is what we are doing today. The Department of Energy was created 25 years ago, and it is still dysfunctional. The Department of Transportation was created 35 years ago, but it still has major structural problems; and it took nearly 40 years for the reorganization of the Department of Defense to work. When we consider a bill like this, there is a temptation to ignore the defects and just vote for it; and perhaps, most likely, that is what will happen tonight. But voting against this bill could be politically damaging sometime in the future. But some things are more important than politics. Genuinely enhancing our national security is more important than politics, and getting this bill right is more important than politics. Mr. Speaker, we should come back next year and make sure we create this new Department in the best way possible. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, Americans are deeply concerned with ensuring the privacy of their health information. Every day, in fact, the need for medical privacy protections grows more urgent. Advances in information systems are increasing the possibilities for accessing health information, and genetic developments are increasing capabilities to screen for sensitive information regarding an individual's susceptibility to certain conditions or diseases. Unfortunately, the Bush Administration recently took a major step backward in providing medical privacy protections to American consumers. In August 2002, the Administration opened up large loopholes in medical privacy protection with changes to the Federal medical privacy rule that had been finalized in December 2000 by the Clinton Administration. The medical privacy rule was the culmination of many years of hearings, study, and analysis in which the Administration, members of Congress, and a multitude of interested parties participated. The rule established a sound foundation for addressing the complex issues relating to medical records privacy. But the Bush Administration's August 2002 changes undermined the privacy protection provided by the rule. The changes eliminated the rule's requirement that individuals must give consent before their personal health information can be used for treatment, payment, and a broad category of activities called ``health care operations.'' The Bush Administration also decreased privacy protections relating to marketing activities by removing privacy protections for activities that most consumers consider to be marketing. Further, in a so-called ``public health'' provision, the Bush Administration created a broad exemption that allows disclosures of health information without patient consent to drug companies and other entities regulated by the FDA for a wide range of purposes. The December 2000 rule, in contrast, allowed such disclosures only for a narrowly defined list of health-related activities such as reporting adverse events associated with drugs. Because of the damage the Bush Administration did to medical privacy in August 2002, I am joining Representative Ed Markey, Representative John Dingell, and others in introducing H.R. 5646, the Stop Taking Our Health Privacy Act of 2002. This bill would: (1) reinstate the December 2000 rule's patient consent requirement for treatment, payment, and health care operations while ensuring that this requirement does not undermine essential health care activities such as filling prescriptions and making referrals; (2) strike the Bush Administration's definition of ``marketing,'' thereby ensuring that the rule's privacy protections apply to activities consumers consider marketing; and (3) eliminate the broad exemption the Bush Administration created that would have allowed disclosure without consent to drug companies, while ensuring that disclosures essential for public health purposes are allowed. This bill is necessary to restore Federal medical privacy protections that were taken away by the Bush Administration. At the least, Congress should ensure that Americans have at least the same medical privacy protections that were established in the December 2000 rule. Congress of course must go beyond remedying the damage done by the Bush Administration. In large part due to statutory restrictions on the authority of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, gaps in medical privacy protection remained after the December 2000 rule. We need to ensure that all entities that maintain an individual's health records take appropriate steps to protect the privacy of that information. We also need to provide protections against discrimination by employers and health insurers based on an individual's genetic information--protections that are increasingly important as we continue to gain understanding of the human genome. I will continue to work to enact comprehensive protections regarding the disclosure and use of individuals' personal health information.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, as we limp out of this Congress with an embarrassing budget debacle, I want to spend a few minutes talking about an issue the Republican leadership wants to sweep under the rug: how their fiscal mismanagement is imperiling the Social Security program. The Federal budget has become an enormous mess. Before the Bush administration took office, independent budget experts were predicting a $3 trillion surplus over the next 10 years. Now experts are saying that under the President's budget we will have a deficit of over $2 trillion. This is the largest and most rapid decline in the Federal budget since the Depression. The mismanagement is so egregious it is breathtaking. Most Americans do not realize how the government pays for the deficit, but here is what happens: The government raids the Social Security trust fund. Let me repeat this. The Federal Government is going to run a deficit of over $2 trillion over the next 10 years. And to pay for this deficit, the government is going to borrow over $2 trillion from the reserves in the Social Security trust fund. They are going to raid your retirement nest egg to pay for subsidies for the energy companies, tax breaks for wealthy corporate executives. What does this mean to you? If you have a pay stub handy, all you have to do is take a look at the FICA deduction. This FICA deduction is what you pay into Social Security. Over the next 10 years one-third of what you contribute to Social Security through your FICA deductions is going to be borrowed by the government to pay for its operating expenses. That is your money. It is supposed to go into the Social Security trust fund to build up a reserve for when the baby boomers retire, but instead it is going to be squandered to pay for last year's tax cuts and other government spending. But it gets worse. The Federal Government is supposed to repay everything it borrows from the Social Security trust fund. In fact, the law says the full faith and credit of the United States is backing it. But listen to what Republican leaders are saying about their intent to repay the trust funds. Here is what the Republican majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) said in a memo to House Republicans last year: ``The hard truth is the Social Security trust fund is empty. It is a mere accounting device.'' Here is what the President's spokesman said less than 3 months ago: ``Employees who contribute to Social Security will get nothing in return.'' And here is what Republican Senator Phil Gramm said: ``There is no Social Security trust fund. It is a total fraud.'' The Social Security trust fund consists of ``worthless IOUs.'' The fact is they have no plan to repay the Social Security trust fund. In fact, we cannot even get our act together to pass a budget for next year. Now, here is a question for my Republican colleagues: As you struggle to deal with the mess you have made of the Federal budget, are you going to repay that Social Security fund? As you force millions of Americans to lend their FICA money to the government, how are you going to keep faith with them? How are you going to pay them back? What is your long-term plan? Mr. Speaker, I introduced legislation earlier this year with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) which would require that the Federal Government repay Social Security. The bill is H.R. 5252, the Social Security Preservation Act. Not a single Republican Member has co-sponsored that bill. What is happening is a scandal, but my Republican colleagues do not want you to know about it.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, we face today one of the most important questions that can ever come before us as Members of Congress: whether to authorize the use of force, and commit the men and women of our armed forces to defend liberty and to protect the United States, at the possible cost of their lives--and the lives of many in a country far from our shores. It is an issue Americans care deeply about. I have received hundreds of calls during the past few weeks, and many of my constituents are raising similar and very serious concerns. They are suspicious of the timing of this debate. They see political overtones to it, and question whether this vote is being used as political purposes. Many are worried about the precedent of a preemptive and unilateral attack, and how that precedent might be used by other countries looking to justify aggressive and hostile acts. Others have expressed doubts about the Bush Administration's handling of foreign policy. They point to the Administration's abysmal record on a series of international efforts, including the Kyoto Protocol, the Biological Weapons Convention, and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia. The Administration has created its own credibility problem by consistently going its own way instead of being the leader of a world coalition. Many callers have told me they don't see evidence that Saddam Hussein poses a current threat to the United States. They think terrorism by Al Qaeda is a greater and more immediate danger, and that Iraq is a diversion from our failure to capture Osama bin Laden. And over and over I've been told that war should be a last resort. Unfortunately, to many of my constituents, the Administration has created the perception that war with Iraq is our first and only resort. All of those concerns have been on my mind as I've deliberated on this vote. I've spent the good part of these last few weeks listening to experts from this Administration, from the Clinton Administration, and from non-partisan, independent organizations. I've tried to sort out what we know to be true and what we just suspect to be true. And I've tried to evaluate our best course when faced with the uncertain but potentially catastrophic threat that Saddam poses and the unpredictable horror a war can bring. Eleven years ago, in the face of Saddam's aggression against Kuwait, I voted reluctantly to oppose the use of force. I thought then that more time should be given to diplomacy, and to the enforcement of sanctions against Iraq. But once Congress acted, there was no question of the commitment of all of us to the success of Desert Storm. The liberation of Kuwait was effected; our casualties were thankfully quite small; and stability was, for an extended period of time, restored to the region. To be certain, many of us thought, and fervently hoped, that the crushing military defeat suffered by Saddam would result in his overthrow. Other monstrous dictators--such as Milosevic in Serbia--have crumbled in the face of far less of an onslaught. It is a mark of Saddam's cunning and ruthlessness that he survived the upheavals in his country that did unfold after the Gulf War, that he is still in power, and that he is still able to oppress his people. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration's policy towards Iraq, I don't think there can be any question about Saddam's conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant U.N. resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts. And now, time has run out. It has been four long years since the last U.N. weapons inspectors were effectively ejected from Iraq because of Saddam's willful noncompliance with an effective inspection regime. What Saddam has done in the interim is not known for certain--but there is every evidence, from the dossier prepared by the Prime Minister of Britain, to President Bush's speech at the United Nations, that Saddam has rebuilt substantial chemical and biological weapons stocks, and that he is determined to obtain the means necessary to produce nuclear weapons. He has ballistic missiles, and more are on order. He traffics with other evil people in this world, intent on harming the United States, Israel, other nations in the Middle East, and our friends across the globe. We know Saddam quite well. We know he kills a lot of people, even in his own family. We know when he gives his word it cannot be trusted. We know he is a shameless propagandist. We recall that he held women and children hostage for a time in Baghdad as human shields in 1990 to try to deter armed attack to liberate Kuwait. We know what he does to his own people in the north and south of his country and what he did to his neighbors in Iran and Kuwait. We also know that Saddam is the patron saint of the homicide bombers in Israel. He pays their families when their youth go to kingdom-come from the streets of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. And Iraq, under Saddam, is one of only seven nations designated as a state sponsor of terrorism because of his aid and training of terrorists, according to the U.S. State Department. Wehter he is tied in with al-Qaeda is still subject to debate, but they share an intense hatred for the United States, Israel, and our allies, and in their willingness to attack civilians to achieve their purposes. In a perfect world the Iraqi people would have been able to seize their destiny and liberate their country. In a perfect world the U.N. resolutions calling for Saddam's disarmament would have been properly enforced. But this is not a perfect world, and so today we struggle with how best to achieve that disarmament. That is our objective--our debate today is over the right means to that necessary end. Eleven years ago, the United Nations Security Council approved a resolution calling for the liberation of Kuwait, and the disarmament of Saddam. This occurred before we voted in Congress to authorize the use of force against Iraq in January 1991. Eleven years ago, in other words, we in Congress were voting to endorse the consensus reached in the United Nations over what the world should do to repel Saddam's aggression in the region and provide the basis for an Iraq that could not threaten its neighbors via war or weapons of mass destruction. Today, the order is reversed and it is the Congress that is voting first on a resolution of war. And that is being done in the hope that it will help force a consensus in the United Nations so that the world--not just the United States--can pursue these issues on the soundest possible basis, with the strongest degree of support from as many nations as possible. This is why we have to get this resolution right. And this is why I strongly support the substitute, which emphasizes action by the UN and the international community. It outlines the importance of working with a coalition, and before American lives are placed at risk, exhausting all other options through diplomacy and unfettered inspections. We should do all we can to secure a Security Council endorsement for an invasion of Iraq, and possibly to avoid a war by forcing Saddam to abide by the UN requirements for disarmament. War must always be a last resort. In my view, Saddam has nearly brought us to that point. We have tried containment and sanctions over the last ten years, and both have failed. Sanctions hurt the people of Iraq and Saddam did not care about them. Inspections have failed because he has frustrated the inspectors and eventually forced them out of his country four years ago. We've tried surgical strikes on his facilities and no fly zones over large parts of his territory. He has responded by continuing to try to obtain weapons of mass destruction. He has turned the humanitarian efforts to allow oil sales for food into a $2 billion pot of money for weapons. In light of all this, if the UN does not act, it not only leaves Saddam unchecked but it undermines, perhaps fatally, the purpose of having or supporting a UN in the first place. If the UN does not or cannot act, the substitute does nothing to compromise the ability of the Congress to authorize the use of force to protect America's interests--unilaterally if necessary--if we believe it necessary at a later time. Under the substitute, we sacrifice none of our sovereignty--none--and maximize every opportunity for diplomacy and consensus. The substitute correctly recognizes that should we reach the point of last resort, that is the time for Congress to declare war. For all those reasons, I urge the House of Representatives to adopt the substitute and hope it will be the course we follow. It is the better choice and is the one most of my constituents and other Americans support. It is possible, however, that the substitute will be defeated. The question, then, is whether to support the Resolution President Bush has sent us, as modified through negotiations with Representative Richard Gephardt, the House Democratic Leader. Although I disagree deeply with much of President Bush's domestic policies and some aspects of his foreign policy, I agree with his conclusion that we cannot leave Saddam to continue on his present course. No one doubts that he is trying to build a nuclear device, and when he does, his potential for blackmail to dominate the Persian Gulf and Middle East will be enormous, and our efforts to deal with him be even more difficult and perilous. The risks of inaction clearly outweigh the risks of action. Despite my misgivings about the President's approach, I believe it's essential that Congress send the strongest bipartisan signal of unity possible so the U.N. will act. Some have even suggested that taking the threat of force out of the equation might undermine that result. In a post September 11 world, it is important we speak with one voice and send one message--particularly when the lives of our men and women in the armed forces are at stake. And it is important that we not send a confused signal to Iraq, so that there be no doubt about our resolve. Mr. Speaker, the goal I want is decisive U.N. action and the effective disarmament of Iraq. The substitute achieves that goal and should be approved. But if it is defeated, I believe supporting the President's proposal brings us closer to realizing that goal than defeating the Resolution. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I will support the President's resolution if it is before us.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 7(c) of rule XXII, I hereby give notice of my intention to offer a motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 4. The form of the motion is as follows: Mr. Waxman moves that the managers on the part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the Senate amendments to the bill H.R. 4 be instructed to insist, to the extent possible, within the scope of the conference, that the conferees reject provisions that mandate the use of ethanol in gasoline. Mr. Speaker, I further have another motion to instruct conferees. The form of that motion is as follows: Mr. Waxman moves that the managers on the part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the Senate amendments to the bill H.R. 4 be instructed to insist, to the extent possible, within the scope of the conference, that the conferees reject provisions that limit the liability of a responsible party for the contamination of groundwater with a fuel or fuel additive.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2357, which would change the tax code to allow religious non-profit organizations to engage in political activity, use tax-exempt contributions for political purposes, and enable religious leaders to endorse candidates from their pulpit. This legislation is a serious mistake and would be a grave violation of the constitutional separation between church and state. The real purpose of the bill appears to be helping special interest groups circumvent campaign finance laws by channeling fundraising, contribution, and endorsement activity through religious organizations. We all know that charitable, tax-deductible donations are easier to raise than political contributions. And religious non-profits are the only institutions that do not have to publicly file annual IRS tax reports. If this ill-conceived bill became law, congregants may have to begin checking the political leanings of their rabbi or preacher before joining congregations. Is that what we want? Do we want annual membership dues ending up in campaign coffers? Are we so greedy for campaign cash that we're willing to violate sacred houses of worship and threaten the integrity of religion? I'm, not ready for that. Under existing law, religious leaders already have tremendous latitude in their ability to discuss political issues. Religious institutions can even set up affiliate organizations to raise non-deductible funds for political activity, that rightfully must be reported to the IRS and publicly disclosed. That is why the National Council of Churches has called this bill ``unnecessary, unwise and unwanted.'' I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 2357. It would only promote abuse of campaign finance laws, abuse of the tax code, and abuse of our nation's founding principle of religious freedom.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4013, the Rare Diseases Act of 2002. I am proud to have introduced this piece of legislation with my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus). This is a bill which would work to the benefit of those suffering from rare diseases both by establishing an Office of Rare Diseases at the National Institutes of Health, and by providing for rare disease regional centers of excellence. A rare disease is defined in the United States as one affecting fewer than 200,000 Americans. There are around 6,000 known rare diseases, and it is estimated that about 25 million Americans are affected by them. Over 220 treatments have been developed in the last two decades for rare diseases, but many more are needed. The Office of Rare Diseases at the National Institutes of Health was established in 1993 to promote research and provide information. However, this office was not given any authority. Also, although Congress has substantially increased research funding for NIH, funding for rare diseases has only increased slightly. This legislation increases to $25 million the Orphan Product Research Grant Program administered by the Office of Orphan Product Development at the Food and Drug Administration, thus encouraging more extensive research, testing, and attention. The Rare Diseases Act of 2002 establishes the Office of Rare Diseases as a Federal office, including its ability to coordinate research and establish regional centers of excellence for clinical research. This is an important piece of legislation, and I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting its passage. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

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 object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I also rise in support of this bill, and I am honored to be a co-sponsor with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) in this legislation. This bill and the previous one are two bills that are furthering the cause of developing drugs for people with rare diseases. It is very important for the progress of research on treatments and to find cures for rare diseases. There are 6,000 rare diseases that affect approximately 25 million Americans. These diseases include cystic fibrosis, Lou Gehrig's disease and muscular dystrophy, to mention three of the well-known diseases that affect less than 200,000 people, and, therefore, are designated as rare. The availability of safe and effective treatments for rare diseases has historically been limited due to the lack of incentive for pharmaceutical firms to commercialize such medications. To address this problem, Congress passed the Orphan Drug Act, which allows for market exclusivity for products developed for rare diseases, as well as special tax treatment for the companies that are willing to make that investment. In addition, the Food and Drug Administration supports small clinical trials through orphan products research grants. These grants have led to the development of at least 23 drugs and four medical devices for rare diseases. The purpose of this legislation is to increase the national investment in the development of diagnostics and treatments for people with rare diseases. H.R. 4014 is for the funding of the Orphan Product Research Grant Program, and increases the national investment in the development of diagnostics and treatment for patients with these rare diseases. It is a good piece of legislation. I am pleased and honored to join with my colleagues on a bipartisan basis. There should be no partisanship or conflict that we see on other issues when it comes to trying to help Americans overcome the terror of diseases that afflict them and is such a burden to their families. I urge all of my colleagues to join all of us in supporting H.R. 4014. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to use this opportunity to give some historical perspective on some of these issues with regard to the pharmaceutical industry. Mr. Speaker, I think that the pharmaceutical industry could be credited with the enormous contribution they make in curing diseases. But I think we need to recognize that when the Orphan Drug Act was first talked about, it was due to the fact that the pharmaceutical industry did not pay attention to people who had rare diseases because the profit potential was not there for them to make the investment. They were much more interested, as any business would be, in trying to manufacture drugs that could have a widespread audience, so to speak, to buy their product. A lot of the work they do is based on the government investment and research. We give money to the National Institutes of Health, and they work with grants and contracts with leading researchers all around the country to do the basic work. The pharmaceutical industry then takes the benefit of that public investment and finds an application which leads to products that they are able to market. They then get a patent on the product. I have always regretted the fact that the public does not get its share of the return on our investment for some of these very same products. But in the Orphan Drug Act we said, look, we will give you every incentive in the pharmaceutical industry to make the investment because we want people with rare diseases not to be ignored. So we gave them an exclusivity. If they developed a drug for patients with rare diseases, we gave them tax breaks. We funded research as this bill and the previous one will do at the NIH and at the FDA, but we found that while in most cases it barely offered any real profit numbers to be attractive to pharmaceutical industries, they responded well to the incentives. In some cases, there were diseases that were classified as rare diseases which became a windfall for the pharmaceutical industry. The pharmaceutical industry, for example, when the HIV/AIDS epidemic hit, were able to classify their drugs as orphan drugs because the patient population was not that large at that time. Later it mushroomed, of course, as the epidemic progressed, and the Congress revisited the issues through hearings as to whether we were being much too generous to the pharmaceutical industry in giving them the exclusivity which meant they could block competition. We were willing to give them exclusivity for a disease that did not offer much profit potential, but when it was extremely profitable, there was not really any justification for that exclusivity over and above their patents and other rights that pharmaceutical manufacturers have. But we have never been able to take anything back from the drug companies once they have gotten it in law, even when it was not justified for them to have it. There was another example of this, by the way, earlier this year. I was involved in the original legislation to say to the manufacturers, do the research on children when they get a drug approved, do that research so that we can know what the needs are for children, if they could use a certain pharmaceutical product. We tried to use a carrot and a stick. A stick would be if they were coming up with a new drug, FDA should require those tests before it approved the new drug, but a carrot for those drugs that are already on the market, we gave them an exclusivity of 6 months. Does not sound like a lot of time. Then when we revisited the issue, it turned out that the companies were using that exclusivity in a way to enhance their monopoly over drugs that are widely used even though the studies for the children required a minimal amount of investment. Not only that, they were doing the minimal amount investment on the use for children, on drugs that were rarely used by children, so they could get the monopoly on the pharmaceuticals that were used by adults. And monopoly is a real incentive for research, but it can be abusive, because after a while monopolies are simply a way to keep out competition, and we know what happens when there is no competition. It means consumers pay the highest prices. So we have some pharmaceuticals where there are wonderful drugs, the public investment in research paid off when they were applied by the pharmaceutical industry to get these drugs, but it meant that some consumers could not even afford the drugs that were developed. This bill before us today is a good one. We want to encourage the development of drugs for rare diseases, and I commend the drug companies for their work, but we need to keep it in perspective, that sometimes we have to come back and review these special breaks that we give to the companies because they are willing to take a loophole and expand it so enormously that it outprices many consumers for their product. We want to give them the incentive to develop the product, but we want to let the public be able to purchase the product as well. I take these few minutes to give some expansion of the historical perspective on the Orphan Drug Act, the pediatric exclusivity, and we will save for another time the abuses the Hatch-Waxman Act, which we, hopefully we are this year going to try to end by following the example of the U.S. Senate in stopping the loopholes that have been so abused by pharmaceutical companies, far beyond anything that any of us ever envisioned when we adopted the original Hatch-Waxman Act. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, 1 minute. There is not a lot I can say in 1 minute, but let me say the following: the Republicans seem to think that Washington has all the answers right here, and we ought to take it away from the States to make their own decisions, and I think that is a wrong approach. They would impose a bill to be in place for all of this country when there are a lot of differences and a lot of different approaches to issues like tort liabilities, licensures of professionals and how to handle those matters. But supporters of this bill claim it is modeled after the California Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act, but the liability limits in this bill go far beyond medical malpractice. They extend to any lawsuits relating to any health care or medical product including the manufacturers and distributors of drugs and medical devices. This is far beyond the liability limits adopted in California or, as far as I am aware, any other State. So I oppose this bill. I know that they are trying to do something about the medical malpractice problem, but I do not think it answers the problem; and I think it makes it one-size-fits-all, and it is not the best approach.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us is an enormous change in current policy about reproductive health, about patients' rights and about federalism. It is not a simple clarification as some have termed it. That may well be the reason we have this process of getting to the floor without markups in committee or subcommittee, without any chance on the floor to offer an amendment. Let me explain why I say this is a very, very radical bill. Under current law, beginning since the time of Roe v. Wade, there have been Federal laws that allow doctors, nurses and hospitals to refuse to perform abortion services because of their religious beliefs, and they still can get Federal funds for other services. Catholic doctors do not have to perform abortions. Catholic hospitals do not have to support abortion clinics. This permission for people to refuse because of their religious or moral objection is established already in the law and it is working smoothly, but this bill goes far beyond that. This bill first and most obvious is not a bill about religion or conscience. While current law says that doctors and hospitals can exercise their religious or moral objections, this bill is not defined in that way. This bill would allow insurance companies and HMOs to ignore laws about patients' information and gag rules because they want to cut costs, because they want to reduce benefits or for no reason at all. Any HMO could gag its doctor, not because HMOs have a conscience, but because they would rather cut time with the patient from 9 minutes to 8. Any public hospital could decide that it would be easier if they did not have a protester out front. Further, this bill would allow the gag rule to govern for title X family planning grantees and this would reverse long-standing policy of providing nondirective information on all options. Secondly, this bill is not just about doctors or even hospitals refusing to provide services. Those people are given permission to refuse under current law. This bill lets hospitals, insurance plans, HMOs and other corporate entities to gag their doctors and nurses from giving medically appropriate information to their patients. In other words, it would allow them to engage in what is medical malpractice, not giving the information their patients are entitled to receive. We have tried to get a Patients' Bill of Rights enacted. We have had differences on the ability to sue to enforce those rights, but this bill instead provides a legal protection for a gag. It takes away patients' rights. This is a patients' bill of nonrights and having totally failed to enact the bill to protect patients' rights from the abuse of managed care, the majority is now moving to undo the efforts to those States who have enacted their own patient protection law. That is the last point I want to make. It overrides State laws. It overrides the constitution in the State of Alaska where it says that a public hospital who is the only provider of services in the entire region must be available for legal abortion services. We should not overturn lightly the constitution of the State of Alaska. We are not here to regulate health insurance at the Federal level. That is what most of my Republican colleagues would object to, and yet they allow this to happen. This is not a bill about religion. It is not about equal protection. It is the exact opposite, of guaranteeing constitutional rights to safe and legal abortions, family planning and medical privacy; and there is no Federal legitimate purpose here. I would urge Members to oppose this bill and support the motion to recommit which will make this do what the authors say they want to do.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The improvements in the bill are improvements not from the language of the Committee on Government Reform but from the original bill introduced by the President. What we need to do is restore all of the provisions that were adopted by the Committee on Government Reform. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), the cosponsor of this amendment. (Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WAXMAN. How is it that whenever the amendment is offered on the other side, they get the right to close, and when an amendment is offered on our side, they still get the right to close? When they propose it they close, and when they oppose it they close. Is it a rule or does it just simply go to the majority party?

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I really cannot believe this. Yesterday, the Republicans were forced, kicking and screaming, to vote for legislation on corporate responsibility and today, they are proposing legislation that would give a green light to corporate irresponsibility. Now, do you remember when they passed under the Contract for America the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act? It said to accountants, they did not have to be responsible anymore, they could not be sued. So what happened? We got Enron. We got all of these scandals. This bill exempts from liability a company that would make a defective smallpox vaccine. It would exempt from liability a seller of what was supposed to be antiterrorism technology that did not work. They would allow people who are supposed to be doing the work of protecting the people and who are negligent in doing it not to even be held responsible. Even worse, if somebody was grossly negligent and acted intentionally, they would still not be held liable. Let me give another example. A company that is supposed to screen for our protection at an airport can hire a known felon and maybe someone that if they had checked and used reasonable due care could have found out that person was a terrorist, and they would hire them and a terrible tragedy could occur, but the company would not be responsible. They are not held to legal liability because they are given this exemption from any legal liability under the Armey proposal. This is a green light to corporations to cut corners, to not have the incentive to do the job right because they are going to be second- guessed and held accountable in the courts if they do it wrong. The biggest problem they might have is they might not have their contract renewed. But do you know what? If they violate their contract, they cannot even be sued to do their part of the agreement because they are exempt from liability even under contract law. Mr. Chairman, this is the most irresponsible provision I can imagine, and if anything, we have to wonder, how could they do this? It must be a payoff to corporations to get a lot of campaign money. How else could anybody come up with something so irresponsible in light of what this country has gone through in the last few years and all that our economy is suffering from.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, that has not been the way that the House has proceeded up to now, because I have been managing opposition to a number of amendments, and I have been told the other side has the right to close on those amendments because they are offering the amendment.

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

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would do three things. First, it would codify the Office of Homeland Security in statute and subject it to congressional oversight. Second, it would require that the director of this office be confirmed by the Senate. Third, it would provide the director of the office with authority to review the budgets of all agencies involved in homeland security to ensure that they conform to the objectives of the national strategy. If they don't, the director could decertify these budgets. This would prohibit the OMB director from submitting them to Congress unless the President made an express finding that they served the national interest. Decertification would also trigger a requirement to report the deficiencies to relevant committees in the House and Senate. Mr. Chairman, creating a new department is fine, but the most critical challenge is and will continue to be coordinating the efforts of the entire Federal Government as part of a comprehensive national strategy. This chart to my right shows the current situation. There are 153 different agencies involved in homeland security. The chart next to it, to my right, shows what this bill will do. There will be even more agencies involved. In fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office, this new department is so complex it will cost over $4 billion just to organize and manage the department. As the chart shows, and I am talking about the chart to the far right, the chart shows that many agencies integral to homeland security will remain outside the new department, including the FBI, the CIA, the Defense Department, the National Guard, and many others. What is urgently needed is an office at the White House level with the mandate and authority to develop a national strategy and unite the government behind it. That is what my amendment would do. The starting point for this coordination should be the executive order that established the Office of Homeland Security within the White House, which President Bush issued last October. This order appropriately created a White House-level office charged with coordinating intelligence-gathering, preparedness, prevention, protection of critical infrastructure, and response and recovery across the entire country. The main shortcoming of the executive order, however, is that it did not give the director of the office sufficient authority to implement these functions. This amendment tracks the executive order, but it also provides additional authority to give the Nation what it needs most: a single office in the White House with the mission and authority needed to develop and implement a comprehensive national strategy for homeland security. This amendment would do more to protect our national security, I believe, than the rest of the bill combined, and it is a whole lot simpler and less expensive. I urge Members to vote yes on this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield my remaining 30 seconds to my colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the ranking member on the Select Committee on Homeland Security.