Henry Waxman

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, we have no other requests for time, and we will yield back the balance of our time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, 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. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, let me tell my colleagues what this does not do. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) tried to make us think that civil servants were going to be protected. Well, if an annual cost-of-living is going to other employees, there is no guarantee that employees working in this Department will get it. Nor would they be guaranteed the locality pay increases to offset the higher cost of living. The employee is also not protected against the Department if it engaged in unfair labor practices, such as coercing employees or discriminating against employees who assert their collective bargaining right. Rights are not restored. They are not protected anymore. The employees are at the mercy of the Department, and, in fact, if an agency wanted to take an adverse action against an employee, it does not even have to give them, as existing law, 30 days notice and 7 days to respond, and then if there is an adverse action taken against the employees, there is no provision to give them the right to appeal. These are current rights that are being taken away, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) does not restore those rights.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), the author of the amendment on this whole subject.

Mr. WAXMAN. I see. I thank the Chair for the clarification.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney), who played a very important role in the development of this bill in our committee.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, while I agree that we need homeland security legislation, it is clear that the Federal departments are not working together as they should to protect our Nation. The recent revelations of missed signals and failure to communicate at the FBI and the CIA illustrate how serious this problem is. Unfortunately, the bill we are considering today has serious flaws. In fact, I think it may well cause more problems than it solves. I want to show a chart to the right. Here is how our homeland security agencies are organized today, and I have a second chart. This is how they will be organized after the new Department is created. We are getting more bureaucracy and we are doing so at a tremendous cost to the taxpayers. According to the Congressional Budget Office, just creating and managing a new department will cost $4.5 billion, and this does not include additional spending that may be necessary to prevent terrorist attacks, reduce the Nation's vulnerability to attacks, and recover from any attacks. Now, if this money were used at the front lines of fighting terrorism instead of paying for a new bureaucracy, think how much better off we might be. There is an old adage that those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it, but we may do exactly this in our headlong rush to create this new department. The history of past reorganizations is not reassuring. Here is what Petronius the arbiter, an advisor to the Roman Emperor Nero, said nearly 2000 years ago, and I quote: ``We trained hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams, we would be reorganized. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any situation by reorganizing, and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress, while producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization.'' The committees were able to work in a bipartisan way to achieve some substantial improvements to the President's bill. Unfortunately, the Select Committee on Homeland Security chose to simply reverse many of these gains. Even worse, the Select Committee on Homeland Security added entirely new provisions that weaken our national security. One provision delays deadlines for improving airline safety. Another exempts defense contractors and other large campaign contributors from liability, even for intentional wrongdoing. This is the ultimate anti- corporate responsibility provision imaginable. One major defect in this bill is that it would transfer a vast array of responsibilities that have nothing to do with homeland security such as administrating the national flood insurance program and cleaning up oil spills at sea. This bloats the size of the bureaucracy and dilutes the new department's counterterrorism mission. Another major defect is the bill lacks a strong mechanism to coordinate the activities of the many Federal agencies with major homeland security functions. This coordination has to occur at the White House level to be effective, but this bill does not give the White House Office of Homeland Security the budgetary powers it needs to do its job. I will be offering an amendment later to address this deficiency. Another problem is the President's proposal include broad exemptions from our Nation's most basic good government laws, such as civil services laws and the Freedom of Information Act. We fixed many of these loopholes in our committee, but the Select Committee ignored our work. As a result, I will be offering an amendment with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) to restore to the employees of the new department basic civil service rights. There are many problems in this bill that need to be fixed. I hope we will be able to put aside partisan differences and, for the sake of our national security, finally address them as we move forward with this legislation. I agree we need homeland security legislation. It is clear that federal departments are not working together as they should to protect our nation. Revelations of missed signals and failures to communicate at the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Central Intelligence Agency illustrate how serious the problem is. Unfortunately, the bill we are considering today has serious flaws. In fact, I think it may well cause more problems than it solves. Fundamentally, reorganization is a bureaucratic exercise. The bill before us addresses organizational flow charts, the creation of five new undersecretaries, and the appointment of 12 new assistant secretaries. But as a professor of management at Columbia University recently remarked, ``To think that a structural solution can bring about a major improvement in performance is a major mistake.'' According to the Administration, ``responsibilities for homeland security are dispersed among more than 100 different government organizations.'' Indeed, this organizational chart from the White House lists 153 different agencies, departments, and offices with a role in homeland security. The President's proposal will not simplify this patchwork and may even make it worse. Even after all of the proposed changes, the federal government would continue to have well over 100 agencies, departments, and offices involved in homeland security. According to this chart, prepared by the minority staff of the Appropriations Committee, the total number of departments, agencies, and offices with a role in homeland security actually will grow under the President's proposal, from 153 to 160. We are getting more bureaucracy, not less. And we are doing so at a tremendous cost to the taxpayer. The Administration has asserted that this new Department ``would not `grow' government,'' and that any costs would be paid for by ``eliminating redundancies.'' According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), however, just creating and managing the new Department will cost $4.5 billion. And this does not include ``additional spending that may be necessary to prevent terrorist attacks, reduce the nation's vulnerability to attacks, and recover from any attacks,'' CBO says. If this money were used at the front lines of fighting terrorism-- instead of paying for a new bureaucracy--think how much better off we might be. The committees of jurisdiction were able to work in a bipartisan way to achieve some substantial improvements to the President's bill. Unfortunately, the Select Committee chose to simply reverse many of these gains. Even worse, the Select Committee added entirely new provisions that weaken our national security. One provision added by the Select Committee delays deadlines for improving airline safety. Under current law, the Transportation Security Administration is required to take all necessary action to ensure that all United States airports have sufficient explosive detection systems to screen all checked baggage no later than December 31, 2002. But under the Select Committee bill, air passengers must wait another full year before all bags are checked for bombs. Another new Select Committee provision exempts defense contractors and other large campaign contributors from liability--even for intentional wrongdoing. The Select Committee added a provision to exempt corporations from liability when they make products the Secretary deems ``qualified anti-terrorism technologies.'' For these products, which could include pharmaceutical products such as the anthrax vaccine, the Select Committee limited corporate liability, exempted companies from punitive damages even when the companies are fraudulent or negligent, and gave them complete immunity in state courts. This is the ultimate anti-corporate responsibility provision imaginable. Yesterday, we received a letter from the Reserve Officers of the United States opposing this provision. In their letter, the reserve officers stated that this section ``is inconsistent with pursuing the highest quality product for use by our armed forces as they fight terrorism.'' Yet today, we will hear additional proposals to expand this broad corporate exemption even further. Mr. Armey will introduce an amendment to extend these liability exemptions to an even wider range of potentially defective products and services. On July 9, 2002, I joined with Representative David Obey, the Ranking Member of the Appropriations Committee, in sending a letter to Governor Ridge outlining a number of serious problems with the bill (attached). This letter raised concerns with ten different areas related to the establishment of the new Department. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be inserted in the Record. As the letter explains, one major defect in this bill is that it would transfer to the new Department a vast array of responsibilities that have nothing to do with homeland security, such as administering the National Flood Insurance Program, cleaning up oil spills at sea, and eradicating pests like the boll weevil. Giving the new Department dozens of unrelated responsibilities will bloat the size of the bureaucracy and dilute the new Department's counterterrorism mission. Another major defect is that the bill lacks a strong mechanism to coordinate the activities of the many federal agencies with major homeland security functions. This coordination has to occur at the White House level to be effective, but this bill does not give the White House Office of Homeland Security the budgetary powers it needs to do its job. I will offer an amendment later today that addresses this deficiency. A third problem is that the President's proposal included broad exemptions from our nation's most basic ``good government'' laws. The bill allowed the new Secretary to waive civil service laws that prohibit patronage, protect whistleblowers, provide for collective bargaining rights, and ensure health and retirement benefits. Under the President's proposal, the Secretary could also ignore cornerstone procurement principles, such as open and competitive bidding, and basic government in sunshine laws, such as the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). We fixed many of these loopholes in the Committee on Government Reform, but the Select Committee ignored our work. As a result, I will be offering an amendment with Mr. Frost later today to restore to the employees of the new Department basic civil service rights. I will also be strongly supporting the amendment by Representative Morella to protect collective bargaining rights, and I will be supporting an amendment to fully restore FOIA and FACA protections. Let me make that I am not opposed to reorganization. I am convinced there are steps we can take that will make sense and improve the functioning of our government. But it has to be done in a way that minimizes disruption and bureaucracy and maximizes our ability to confront the terrorism threats that we face. Simply rushing to reorganize is not the solution. A better approach would be to create a leaner, more focused Department of Homeland Security and to strengthen the authority of the existing White House Office of Homeland Security. The new Department should be limited to the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Customs Service, and the Transportation Security Administration. Such a new Department would have less than half of the employees of the proposal before us. Even more important, it would have a narrow, focused mission of protecting our borders and transportation systems. At the same time, we need to develop a detailed homeland security strategy and to ensure that all federal agencies coordinate in implementing the strategy. This needs to be done at the White House level. Currently, there is an office in the White House that is supposed to be providing this coordinating function, but it does not have enough power to be effective. As part of a streamlined, less bureaucratic approach to homeland security, Congress should be codifying the White House Office of Homeland Security in statute and giving the director of the office budgetary authority sufficient to make agencies pay attention to the office. There is an old adage that those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it. But we may do exactly this in our headlong rush to create the new Department. The history of past reorganizations is not reassuring. Here is what Petronius Arbiter, an advisor to Roman Emperor Nero, said nearly 2,000 years ago: We trained hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams, we would be reorganized. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing; and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization. The Department of Energy was created 25 years ago and it is still dysfunctional. The Department of Transportation was created 35 years ago, yet as the National Journal reported, it ``still struggles to make its components cooperate, share information, and generally play nice.'' The model we are supposed to be emulating is the creation of the Department of Defense 50 years ago. But for over 35 years, the Defense Department was riven with strife. In 1983, when President Reagan ordered the invasion of Grenada, the Army and the Marines had to split the island in half because they couldn't figure out how to cooperate. It was not until the Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986 that the problems created in the 1947 reorganization were finally addressed. To avoid the mistakes of the past, we have to do a careful job. But the process we are following is not encouraging. The reorganization plan was released before the Administration completed its work on the national strategy for homeland security. Moreover, the White House proposal we are considering today was put together by a handful of political appointees working in secret. The agencies with expertise were excluded from the process. In fact, there was so little communication between the White House and the agencies that one important agency had to call my staff to find out how it fared under the plan. These days there seems to be a lot of self-congratulation going on, which makes us all feel good. But the time for congratulations and elaborate ceremonies comes when we have captured Osama bin Laden and the other al Qaeda leaders, when we have arrested the criminal who launched the anthrax attacks, and when Americans from California to New York go to bed at night knowing that our intelligence agencies are in the best position possible to thwart terrorism. Our job today is not to congratulate ourselves for creating another bureaucracy, but to address the many problems in this bill that need to be fixed. I hope we will be able to put aside partisan differences and--for the sake of our national security--produce legislation that actually makes sense. House of Representatives, Washington, DC, July 9, 2002. Hon. Tom Ridge, Director, Office of Homeland Security, The White House, Washington, DC. Dear Governor Ridge: Congress is considering the President's proposal to create a new Department of Homeland Security on an accelerated schedule. But now that Congress has received the legislative language that would implement the President's plan, many issues have arisen about the details of the proposal. We are writing in the hope that you will be able to provide expeditious responses to these concerns. The issues fall into ten main areas. First, the new Department will inherit a vast array of responsibilities that have nothing to do with homeland security. These include administering the National Flood Insurance Program, cleaning up oil spills at sea, and eradicating pests like the boll weevil. Giving the new Department dozens of responsibilities unrelated to homeland security risks bloating the size of the bureaucracy and diluting the new Department's counterterrorism mission. Second, the legislation lacks an effective mechanism to coordinate the activities of the many federal agencies that have major homeland security functions. The President's submission to Congress listed 153 different agencies, departments, and offices involved with homeland security. After the creation of the proposed new Department, this number actually will increase to 160 agencies, departments, or offices with security roles. But the draft bill does not include a mechanism for developing and implementing a unified homeland security strategy across the entire government. Third, there are inefficiencies and coordination problems that will arise when parts of agencies are removed from their existing departments and moved to the new Department. The goal of the legislation is to make government more efficient, but some of the proposed changes could have exactly the opposite effect. For example, GAO has testified that programs transferred from the Department of Health and Human Services include ``essential public health functions that, while important for Homeland Security, are critical to basic public health core capacities. Fourth, despite prior assurances that the Administration supported reforms of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) that were passed by the House, the President's proposal would import the INS into the new Department of Homeland Security wholly intact and without these needed internal reforms. Fifth, the legislation includes broad exemptions from our nation's most basic ``good government'' laws. The legislative language would allow the new Secretary, in conjunction with the Office of Personnel Management, to waive all provisions of our civil service laws. These laws have evolved over many decades to ensure that our government has a professional civil service hired on the basis of merit rather than political favoritism. Yet the proposed legislation would allow the new Department to waive all of these protections, including those that prohibit patronage, protect whistle- blowers, provide for collective bargaining rights, and ensure health and retirement benefits. A similar approach has been taken with procurement and the management of real property. Under the proposal, the Secretary does not have to comply with cornerstone procurement principles, such as open and competitive bidding. Moreover, basic government in sunshine laws, such as the Freedom of Information Act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, have been limited in their application to the new Department. Sixth, the President's proposal would give the new Department extraordinary powers to avoid meaningful congressional oversight. Not only would the new Department be able to exempt itself from civil service, procurement, and property laws, it would also be able to rearrange functions, eliminate offices, and transfer large amounts of appropriated funds without having to seek prior congressional approval. Seventh, the proposal does not address the potential for disruption in the nation's war against terrorism. According to David Walker, the Comptroller General of GAO: ``[R]eorganizations of government agencies frequently encounter start up problems and unanticipated consequences that result from the consolidations, are unlikely to fully overcome obstacles and challenges, and may require additional modifications in the future to effectively achieve our collective goals for defending the country against terrorism.'' Although Administration officials have compared this restructuring to the formation of the Department of Defense in the 1940s, that reorganization was not attempted until after the war was over, and even then it caused confusion and inefficiencies for decades. Eighth, there is no comprehensive national strategy for combating terrorism to guide the new Department. Logically, a major bureaucratic reorganization like this should be proposed as part of a comprehensive national strategy for providing homeland security. But in this case, the reorganization is occurring in a vacuum. There is no national strategy that identifies the major threats the nation, faces and explains how the new Department will meet them. Nor is there a comprehensive threat and risk assessment that identifies and prioritizes threats in a coherent manner. Ninth, the costs of this proposal have not been identified. Although the Administration has stated that the creation of this new Department ``would not `grow' government,'' this is not credible. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, even the less ambitious reorganization proposed by Senator Lieberman will cost taxpayers over $1 billion over the next five years. Costs for the Administration's plan inevitably will be higher. Finally, the Administration's proposal was developed in secret by a small group of White House advisors, without substantive input from the agencies that handle homeland security. It is being rushed through Congress on an accelerated schedule. This is not normally an approach that produces sound policy. The potential for making grave mistakes as a result of this truncated process should be a serious concern for all Americans. We need to work together to address the concerns raised in this letter and to make improvements in the legislation. Your response to the issues and questions raised in the body of this letter will be an important step in this process. For this reason--and given the short time frame Congress has for consideration of the legislation--we urge you to respond by July 15, 2002.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the Moran amendment. It is an important amendment, and I urge all Members to vote for it. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is simple. It would prohibit federal agencies from using arbitrary quotas to subject federal employees to either public-private competitions or direct conversions. This Administration has directed agencies to review for outsourcing 425,000 jobs by the end of 2004. In March 2001, OMB directed all agencies to contract out at least 5 percent of the jobs capable of being outsourced. That's 42,500 jobs. That quota increases to 10 percent in FY 03--another 85,000 jobs. The use of these quotas has been roundly criticized for their one- size-fits-all approach to improving efficiency in the federal government. Arbitrarily assigning quotas is poor management practice. It demoralizes the workforce and forces reductions where none may be warranted. These quotas will also encourage agencies to contract out the jobs of federal employees through direct conversions, without the often time- consuming public-private competitions. This unfairly denies Federal employees the opportunity to defend their jobs and denies the taxpayer the benefits of such competition. I know that Representative Tom Davis from the Government Reform Committee agrees with these concerns. At a hearing last year he said he was ``alarmed'' by OMB's use of quotas and that ``No justification for these percentages has been offered to date.'' So this amendment should not be controversial. It would not prevent agencies from competing, converting, or contracting out Federal jobs. However, agencies would no longer be forced to comply with arbitrary quotas. When debating this issue, we used to hear the argument that we needed to wait for GAO's Commercial Activities Panel to issue its report before prohibiting the use of quotas. Well that report was issued in April and one of its principle recommendations was to ``Avoid arbitrary full-time equivalent or other arbitrary numerical goals.'' It goes on to say that ``the success of government programs should be measured by the results achieved in terms of providing value to the taxpayer, not the size of the in-house or contractor workforce. . . . The use of percentage or numerical targets can be counterproductive.'' OMB has generally endorsed the results of the GAO Panel report. It should endorse the recommendation on quotas. They are generally recognized to be bad management technique and we should eliminate them. I urge members to vote for the Moran amendment.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Kucinich amendment which would strike section 513 of the bill. That provision contains a waiver from cost accounting standards for the insurance companies participating in the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program. In today's environment, the Federal Government should be setting an example by holding its own contractors to accounting standards in a consistent manner, not granting legislative waivers at the behest of insurance companies. The accounting standards involved here are important. They ensure that the government is not overcharged for labor and materials, and not charged at all for certain unallowable costs like travel and entertainment. They also ensure that the government pays only its fair share of things like depreciation of equipment and pension costs. Some insurers, like Blue Cross/Blue Shield, argue that these cost accounting standards are burdensome and will cost them too much money to adopt. That is really a very strange contention, given that Blue Cross/Blue Shield already complies with cost accounting standards for their contracts with the military's Tricare health program. And even if they did not already comply, the expenses related to implementing the accounting standards is an allowable cost which could be billed to the FEHBP. So I am afraid that this argument just does not hold water. There is widespread opposition to this waiver. The administration opposes this waiver because the standards ensure consistent reporting of costs on Federal contracts. Federal employees oppose the waiver because they are rightly concerned that overcharges will result in unjustifiably high premiums for their members. And even some of the insurance carriers, such as First Health, oppose the waiver because they do not want to be associated with waivers from accounting standards in the current climate. The taxpayers' money is at stake here. Granting a waiver from these standards exposes the government to waste and fraud. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the failure to apply these standards has already cost the taxpayers millions. There is an old adage: ``A good example is the best sermon.'' There has been a lot of sermonizing lately in Washington on the topic of corporate and governmental accountability. Today we have a chance to set a good example by adopting the Kucinich amendment. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this important amendment.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 393. For months, vicious attacks against Jews across Europe have continued almost on a daily basis. It has been an issue of such great concern to me that last month I sent a letter signed by 140 of my colleagues urging EU Secretary-General Javier Solana to take action against this dangerous trend. In France, Jewish organizations recorded more than 300 anti-Semitic attacks in the month of April alone. Jewish cemeteries have been desecrated, Jewish children have been verbally and physically assaulted on playgrounds and soccer fields, and Jewish institutions have been firebombed and vandalized. In February, yellow stars of David were painted on Jewish shop windows in Paris. In March, there was a drive-by shooting of a kosher butcher shop near Tolouse. And, in the middle of Passover, the Or Aviv Synagogue in Marseilles was burned to the ground. In Belgium, the seat of the European Union, Rabbis and community leaders have been assaulted, as have synagogue worshipers, on their way to and from services. In England, dozens of threats and physical assaults on Jews have been reported in recent months, and in April, a vicious attack on a suburban London synagogue left windows smashed, religious artifacts defaced, and crude swastikas painted everywhere. The situation has only been made worse by the failure of these countries to forcefully condemn these hate crimes and vigorously prosecute their perpetrators. European leaders, including EU representatives, have dismissed the severity of the problem, blaming the Middle East conflict and Muslim demographics instead of the Arab and European media outlets that have fed their fervor by demonizing Jews and justifying suicide murders by Palestinian terrorists. The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms espouses the basic rights of all Europeans to liberty, security, freedom of religion, and freedom from discrimination. Yet, no EU institution has made any effort to uphold these rights for Jewish minorities. It is time for the European nations to take a bold unified stance condemning the re-emergence of anti-Semitism in Europe. It is time for the United Nations to take action and reverse the virulent wave of anti-Semitic attacks unleashed last year at the U.N. Conference on Racism, where delegates sought to equate Zionism and racism and insisted that the Holocaust be written with a lower case ``h'' to lessen the magnitude of the tragedy. Hasn't the horror of World War II taught us the danger of anti- Semitism, which seeks to dehumanize Jews and make them legitimate targets for violence? Hasn't the abomination of suicide murder shown us what happens when hatred devalues human life to create targets for terrorism? The United States and all civilized nations just not be silent in the face of these threats. We must lead the fight to condemn anti-Semitism in Europe, the former Soviet Union, and everyplace it emerges. I urge all of my colleagues to support H. Res. 393.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I cannot tell Members how disappointed I am that we are not discussing a Medicare bill that will really meet the needs of the American people. We are not doing it on a bipartisan basis. Who would have thought this is a partisan issue? Both parties promised prescription drugs for seniors under the Medicare program in the last election, but the Republican plan that is before us today does not provide an adequate benefit. It does not help bring down the cost of drugs or stop excessive pharmaceutical company profits. It does not establish what the premium will be, or if it will be affordable. Our Republican colleagues claim that the premium is set the same way the Medicare premium is now established; but that is wrong, and they know it. Medicare's premium is not set by a private insurance company that is interested first and foremost in its own profits. These premiums will be set just that way. The Republican plan does not guarantee help with the cost of the drugs the physicians prescribe for us, and it does not ensure that we get our drugs at the local pharmacy. The fact is, this plan does not guarantee anything except subsidies for private insurance companies. Let us put a real benefit in Medicare. Let us defeat this bill and give people the help they need. If they want to compare, for those seniors who are watching this, if they want to compare what they will get from the Republican bill and what they would have received from the Democratic bill if we had even had a chance to debate and pass it, go to the Web site. Go to www.House.gov/reform/min, and Members will be able to compare easily on that Web site what the reality is compared to all the promises we have heard from the Republicans. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. WAXMAN

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

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding the time to me. Last fall, the House passed legislation that contained a $254 million tax break for Enron, and the public was so amazed that some people refused to believe what this House had done. Well, guess what? Today we are trying to do it again. This legislation is even more generous to Enron executives than last year's retroactive repeal of the corporate alternative minimum tax. This bill would give tax breaks worth over $300 million to the estates of Enron executives. The same people that looted the company, deceived the public, cooked the books, and bankrupted thousands of employees are going to get hundreds of millions of dollars under today's legislation. This bill is not about protecting family farms and small businesses. They are all well protected by the gentleman from North Dakota's (Mr. Pomeroy) amendment. It is about doing favors for well-connected campaign contributors, like Enron CEO, Ken Lay. The repeal of the estate tax made no sense last year when we had surpluses; but now we are facing mounting deficits, and it is an insane policy. The people who will pay for this tax break for the super-rich are working families. No matter what the Republicans say, there is only one source of money for a tax break of this magnitude, the Social Security trust fund. Here is a picture, if I might show it to my colleagues, of one of the many major beneficiaries of this bill, Jeffrey Skilling. His estate will receive a $55 million tax break under this bill. As some analysts have calculated, this will be paid for by raiding the Social Security contributions of 30,000 American workers. No one can justify that policy. Enron executives are not the only ones who make out like bandits under this bill. So does the Bush Cabinet. At the same time that President Bush is calling on the Nation to make shared sacrifices, he is pushing legislation that would give his estate and the estates of the wealthiest members of his cabinet $100 million or more in tax breaks. That is not a cabinet that reflects American diversity. That is a cabinet that reflects American millionaires, and this bill will give them even more money. Vice President Cheney's family alone will make up to $40 million if this bill passes. This is craziness. We are in a war, and we cannot afford to be giving money to the super rich at the expense of those who are working to pay for the costs of that tax break. And no one can justify giving Mr. Skilling a $55 million tax break or Mr. Cheney a $40 million one. In fact, the Republicans ought to be too ashamed to even try.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in tribute to Rabbi Avis Dimond Miller in honor of her 18th anniversary as a Rabbi of Adas Israel Congregation in Washington, DC. I have known Rabbi Miller for many years. She is an accomplished Rabbi, a talented teacher, and a good friend. I have appreciated first- hand the power of her sermons, the impact of her activism, and the great admiration and respect she has earned from congregants, colleagues, and community members. As the first woman to serve a major Conservative pulpit, and the first woman ever appointed to chair a national committee for the Rabbinical Assembly of the United Synagogue for Conservative Judaism, Rabbi Miller is an impressive role model and a pioneer in the Conservative Jewish movement. In her tenure at Adas Israel, she has been instrumental in developing programs for young adults and young families, and she has authored training manuals to help other synagogues encourage unaffiliated Jewish families to participate in their communities. In her role as chairwoman of the Rabbinical Assembly of the committee on outreach, she has played a tremendous role in helping countless Jewish Americans embrace their Jewish identity. Rabbi Miller has also inspired the congregation to have an ambitious social action agenda, on issues ranging from the plight of Ethiopian Jewry to the blight of homelessness. She is credited with organizing the congregation's Bikkur Holim Committee, a program for visiting the sick, and publishing the first Jewish guide on the subject. She has lectured extensively on medical ethics issues regarding, genetic discrimination, and she will soon put forth an anthology of sermons she delivered during Adas Israel High Holiday services over the past 18 years. In Hebrew, the number 18 is the numeric equivalent of the word chai-- life, and Rabbi Miller has truly been a lifeline for the synagogue. Through her involvement in life cycle events, births, bar and bat mitzvah ceremonies, marriages, and deaths, she has been a pillar of strength and compassion. We owe Rabbi Miller a debt of gratitude for her service to Adas Israel Synagogue and the greater Washington Jewish community. On June 2, 2002, when Adas Israel celebrates Rabbi Miler's special I8 year milestone, it will be my pleasure to join Rabbi Wohlberg, her family and friends, and the entire Adas Israel community in paying tribute to her achievements and wishing her continued success in all of her endeavors.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, well, they might have raised concerns and offered amendments, but the committee that has jurisdiction over the Postal Service did not have a chance to examine it nor did the Committee on Ways and Means, as far as I know, hold hearings on the matter which would have brought in expert testimony.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am here to urge support for the Rangel substitute which would strike, among other things, section 144 from the bill. As the ranking member of the committee that has jurisdiction over the Postal Service, I am especially concerned about section 144. This section would allow Customs agents to inspect outbound mail without a search warrant. Never in our Nation's history have we allowed law enforcement to inspect the outbound personal letters of our Nation's citizens without a search warrant. This is an intrusion on the privacy of the American citizens sending letters abroad, and it could have adverse effects on the delivery of letters by the Postal Service. As many of my colleagues have heard, the American Civil Liberties Union opposes the measure, saying it violates people's expectation of privacy in the mail and that the Customs Service's interest in protecting our borders is adequately protected by its ability to secure a search warrant. A leading association of business mailers is concerned about the provision as well, saying it would slow the pace of mail and add millions to the cost of shipping goods overseas. The Postal Service is strongly opposed to the provision. They say it would have a detrimental impact on their ability to move mail and could jeopardize their international express mail service. Not only is this provision troubling from a civil liberties standpoint and the standpoint of mail delivery, it may also violate our commitment under international mail treaties. In addition, it contradicts section 3623 of title XXXIX which prohibits inspection of certain classes of mail without a search warrant. The provision does not amend title XXXIX and instead would create a statutory conflict. The Customs Service has full authority to search outbound mail now as long as it first obtains a search warrant. Customs argues that this requirement creates too much of a burden for them and that they need broader search authority. It may be that the Customs Service needs this authority, but the Committee on Ways and Means has never held a hearing on this issue to explore why this authority is needed or its impact on civil liberties, and the Committee on Government Reform, which has jurisdiction over the Postal Service, has not had an opportunity to examine this issue at all despite its impacts on the Postal Service. These are serious concerns that need to be explored. We should not approve this unprecedented authority until the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on Government Reform have had an opportunity to examine the issue very, very carefully. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Rangel substitute and give us an opportunity to explore these concerns.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I want to congratulate the leadership of our committee on both the Republican and the Democratic side and all the staffs who worked on this legislation and urge support for the conference report. It includes many valuable provisions that deserve our support. In particular, it provides significant funding to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and to State and local public health systems and hospitals to improve their ability to respond to bioterrorist attacks and other public health emergencies. The report also includes important new food safety authority to the Food and Drug Administration, authority that will be essential in the event of a bioterrorist attack. I am also pleased that we were able to make significant improvements to title IV of this legislation to help protect the Nation's drinking water from terrorist attack. Under these provisions, community water systems will prepare vulnerability assessments and provide these assessments to EPA. EPA will then be able to use the assessments to address the threat of terrorism and for any other lawful purpose. These provisions are a step forward. I am glad they have been included in this legislation. This conference report includes many valuable provisions that deserve our support. In particular, it provides significant funding to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and to State and local public health systems and hospitals to improve their ability to respond to bioterrorist attacks and other public health emergencies. The report also includes important new food safety authority to the Food and Drug Administration--authority which will be essential in the event of a bioterrorist attack. The report authorizes the FDA to: Require food companies to register with the FDA their names and locations; detain food if there is information that it may present a serious risk to health, either at the border or in domestic commerce; require importers to give the FDA prior notice that a food will be coming into the US; require food companies to keep records that will assist the FDA to trace contaminated food; and inspect food establishments when there is a reason to believe that they are holding food that presents a serious risk to health. We were also able to make significant improvements to Title IV of this legislation to help protect the nation's drinking water from terrorist attack. Under these provisions, community water systems will prepare vulnerability assessments, and provide those assessments to EPA. EPA will then be able to use the assessments for a number of critical purposes: To ensure that vulnerabilities are being adequately assessed; to ensure that federal grants are awarded appropriately; to conduct thorough inspections under the Safe Drinking Water Act; to address significant vulnerabilities under section 1431 of the Safe Drinking Water Act; to share with law enforcement and intelligence agencies; and for any other lawful purpose. I would also note that the report contains reauthorization of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act. For the first time, we have included provisions that will allow the FDA to use user fee money to watch over the safety of drugs after they are marketed. This is of great importance, particularly at a time when questions have been raised about whether faster drug approvals have undercut drug safety. These provisions are a step forward, and I am glad they have been included in this legislation.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4592, which would designate the chapel in Los Angeles National Cemetery located in the congressional district I represent as the Bob Hope Veterans Chapel. I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) for his assistance with this legislation and the Committee on Veterans' Affairs for allowing it to reach the floor in time for the chapel naming to coincide with Bob Hope's 99th birthday on May 29. Bob Hope has been named the most honored entertainer of all time with more than 1,500 awards and citations. His career in vaudeville, Broadway, radio, motion pictures, and television has made him an icon of American entertainment. But he will forever be loved for traveling the globe to entertain American GIs. Starting with his World War II radio broadcast for the Armed Forces, Bob Hope dedicated more than 50 years to the USO, delivering holiday cheer and raising the morale of servicemen and women serving throughout the world. He made his first trip to a combat area in 1943 when he and a small USO troupe visited U.S. military facilities in England, Africa, Sicily and Iceland. His commitment to those in uniform is legendary; and he set an example that inspired his peers, his fans and the entertainers who have followed in his path. As many of my colleagues know, Bob Hope and his wife, Delores, recently donated the Bob Hope Collection to the Library of Congress to preserve his invaluable joke files, sound recordings, films, photos and other memorabilia. Now exhibited through the Bob Hope Gallery of American Entertainment, the collection is truly a national treasure. Naming this veterans chapel in his honor is a special way for Congress to express the deep gratitude that all Americans have for Bob Hope. He is the man we awarded the Congressional Gold Medal in 1962 and designated in 1997 as the only person in history to become an honorary veteran. I appreciate the opportunity to pay tribute once again when we ascribe his name to this historic chapel, which is being restored with the help of the Veterans Park conservancy. It will also be a tribute to the 85,000 brave soldiers who are buried at the L.A. National Cemetery. It is a great privilege for me to represent Bob and Delores Hope in Congress. I know other Members of Congress claim them as well; but they live, as Delores Hope told me, and vote in my congressional district and to me that has always been a great honor for me to have them as constituents. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate them on this special honor and to extend my best wishes to them and their family.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Nursing Home Staffing Improvement Act of 2002. In March of this year, HHS provided Congress with the results of a decade-long study on staffing in our nation's nursing homes. HHS researchers concluded that 90% of nursing homes have staffing levels that are too low to provide adequate care. The researchers also identified specific minimum staffing levels that would substantially improve the quality of care received by nursing home residents. The Bush Administration has chosen not to implement these much needed minimum staffing levels, even going so far as to limit public distribution of the study. In order to ensure that this important research is not ignored, the Nursing Home Staffing Improvement Act of 2002 would establish the minimum nurse staffing levels identified by HHS researchers. The bill requires that nursing-homes comply with HHS-identified staffing levels for registered nurses, licensed nurses, and certified nurse aides. These staffing levels would require that all nursing home residents receive between 4.1 and 4.85 hours of nursing care each day. The bill increases resources to nursing homes to comply with these staffing levels by reinstating the Boren Amendment and increasing the federal Medicaid match to states for payment of health care services by 1.5%. There is an urgent need for this bill right now, as demonstrated by the findings of the HHS study and investigative reports issued by the minority staff of the Government Reform Committee. At the request of House members, the Government Reform Committee minority staff has written over 25 reports on nursing home conditions around the country. These reports have found that large numbers of nursing homes are being cited for violations of federal standards relating to pressure sores, preventable accidents, improper medical care, malnutrition, dehydration, and abuse. These reports also have found a clear relationship between more staffing and better care. The Bush Administration claims that more research is necessary before we can establish minimum staffing standards. We have already had a decade of research from some of the foremost experts in the field. Now is the time for action. We in Congress have a responsibility to do all we can to protect our nation's seniors. They helped our generation when we needed their help. And now it's our turn--and our obligation--to provide them with the highest quality of care.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us expresses our solidarity with Israel in its war against terrorism. We know from September 11 what it means to be attacked by a suicide or homicide bomber. We are fighting a just war 6,000 miles away in order to defend ourselves, and we should side with Israel as it fights for its very life against terrorists who are sent into Israel from operations only a few miles away. The only way for peace is for the United States to make clear that we will demand that Israel be permitted to exist and live with peace and security. The second way to peace is to stand up to terrorism. Palestinians killed when Israelis tried to root out terrorism in the territories, where they tried to root the infrastructure is a tragedy, but innocent civilians killed as the sole objective of murderers who are willing to kill themselves as well is abhorrent. It is vile. It should not be considered martyrdom or simply another tool to accomplish political objectives. I know many Members would like to have various changes in this resolution, but the resolution before us ought to have the support of our colleagues, even if they would have preferred a different version, because the essence of this resolution is to stand with Israel and make clear to the Arab world, we want peace but we are not going to let them drive a wedge between the United States and Israel. They ought to forget about that. Israel has been fighting for its very life since 1948 and has yearned for peace. It was willing to accept a Palestinian State in 1948 under the U.N. resolution. The Arabs rejected it. In 1967, the lines, the Arab world said they want to return to. They found it unacceptable in 1967 and declared a war against Israel, and Israel won that war, and has had the territory ever since, but Israel has been willing to take the risks for peace by talking about territorial changes. It is Arafat, as the leader of the Palestinian people, who rejected the offer made at Camp David and Intaba and, rather than give a counteroffer, has gone to war. War should not be rewarded. Terrorism should not be rewarded. Only through negotiations of working out territory and security can there be peace, not a discussion of whether there ought to continue to be a state of Israel. I urge members to vote for this resolution. Vote for it because in its very essence it puts the United States on the side of peace by assuring that there will be an Israel and that it will be secure and the terrorism will not be acceptable.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, today we solemnly commemorate the 87th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide, when the Ottoman Government unleashed a campaign of devastation and destruction against its Armenian population. Over the course of eight years, beginning in 1915, Armenian communities were systematically destroyed. One and a half million men, women, and children were murdered and nearly one million others were deported. From the ashes of destruction, the survivors rebuilt their lives and many established vibrant Armenian communities here in the United States, but the scars of the massacres are deeply embedded in their history and our conscience. The world was silent during the bloodshed of Armenians. It was tragically just a short number of years before this inaction degenerated into paralysis against Hitler's attempt to annihilate the Jews. At a time when the flames of anti-Semitism are reigniting across Europe, we have a responsibility to redouble our efforts against the bigotry and intolerance that sparked the Armenian Genocide and later the Holocaust. At a time when there are still attempts to refute the Armenian Genocide and Holocaust denial is spreading rampantly through the Arab world, we have an obligation to resolve ourselves against the dangers of historical revisionism. Today we mourn the victims, pay tribute to the survivors, and stand together with all who are committed to promoting awareness about this dark chapter of history. Today we remember to never forget.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, this week we celebrate Israel Independence Day, paying tribute to the shared values and goals that are the cement of strong U.S.-Israel relations. We demonstrate our unwavering support for our staunchest ally in the Middle East. We express our solidarity with the people of Israel whose vibrant democracy and brave military stand beside us on the front lines of the war against terrorism. But even as we celebrate the miraculous achievements since the establishment of the Jewish State 54 years ago, we must recognize that Israel is still engaged in a fight for its survival. Since Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat rejected the tremendous proposals put forward at Camp David and unleashed the current Intifada, more than 460 Israelis have been murdered and more than 3,000 wounded by vicious terrorist attacks. Proportional to our own population, that figure is staggeringly more than three times the number of those killed in the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Daily life in Israel has been torn apart by the uncertainty of when another suicide bomber will strike against innocent civilians at a pizza store, a cafe, a grocery store, a disco, or on a bus. Families have been shattered by Palestinian terrorists who have targeted Bat- mitzvah guests and mothers walking their children to synagogue. The reason there is no cease-fire is that Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat supports the violence. He was unwilling to stop Hamas and Islamic Jihad and the documents seized by the Israeli army from Arafat's headquarters and other Palestinian Authority offices demonstrate that he actively endorses and funds the terrorist activities of his Fatah militias--the Tanzim, Force 17, and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, which was recently added to the U.S. list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations. The root cause of Palestinian terrorism is not settlements. It is the exhortation by the Palestinian leadership for its youth to sacrifice their own dreams of statehood to Arafat's quest for martyrdom. The underlying source of Palestinian hatred is not Israel's acts of self defense. It is anti-Semitism indoctrinated by Palestinian textbooks and television shows that glorify murder and exalt suicide bombers. It is shocking to me that those in Europe and at the United Nations who so harshly judge Israel have no sympathy for Israel as the victim of daily terrorism. The war between Israelis and Palestinians is not about Arafat and Sharon. It is about the refusal of a democratic society to reward terrorism with territory. It is about a civilized society unwilling to legitimize suicide attacks as a form of political negotiation. If Arafat can succeed, then Bin Laden can succeed. Not because they share the same goals, but because they share the same tactics. That is why it is so critical that the United States stand with Israel in this time of crisis, strong in our resolve against those who support and justify terrorism. Israel as a sovereign nation has the right to take all measures necessary to defend its citizens, and it is in the interest of the United States to support its ability to do so. Although President Bush has dispatched CIA Director Tenet, Senator Mitchell, General Zinni, Vice President Cheney, and now Secretary Powell to try and restore security and stability, it is clear that no one will succeed unless Chairman Arafat renounces terrorism and starts preparing the Palestinian people for peace instead of war. At a time when synagogues are burning in France, Saudi newspapers are launching 21st century blood libels, and a Passover Seder in Netanya can become the target of terrorist bloodshed, the existence of the State of Israel is more important now than ever.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate Panasonic for the April 12, 2002 grand opening at Hollywood's Universal Studios of a center that consolidates and expands Panasonic's R&D efforts to develop next-generation digital video compression technologies for the entertainment industry. This proximity to the entertainment community will result in new and better products for American consumers, while reinforcing Hollywood's preeminent position as the center of the global entertainment industry. Matsushita Electric Industrial Company, Ltd., best known by its brand name Panasonic, and a worldwide leader in the development and manufacture of electronics products for consumer, business, and industrial needs, has a long record of close cooperation with Hollywood in developing new digital technologies for the studios, ranging from next generation optical disc development to advanced technologies for digital cinema and broadband distribution. Matsushita Electric established its High-Definition Telecine Center on the Universal Studios lot in 1993 with the mission of converting film-based content to High Definition video. Today HDTC is a leading high-definition center--digitally converting, restoring, and enhancing film for theatrical, cable and home video purposes. In 1996, on the same lot, the company opened the Digital Video Compression Center, a pioneering DVD authoring center. The DVCC currently authors numerous studio titles and provides video compression, complex special editions, and multi-angle/multi-story authoring capabilities. Five years later, Panasonic Hollywood Lab, a division of Panasonic Technologies Company, opened a research center to develop next-generation digital video compression and technologies for broadband distribution of video and other digital content. The new center, under the direction of Mr. Masayuki Kozuka, now will add a digital image evaluation facility to its areas of focus. Here industry professionals will interact with lab engineers to evaluate High Definition image quality for digital cinema, digital TV and next- generation optical disks, as well as highly compressed imaging for future mobile devices. On this important occasion, my special congratulations go to Sukeichi Miki, chief technology officer and senior managing director of Matsushita Electric; Kazuo Toda, senior managing director of Matsushita Electric; Don Iwatani, chairman and CEO of Matsushita Electric Corporation of America (Panasonic); Dr. Paul Liao, president and COO of Panasonic Technologies Company and vice president and chief technology officer for Matsushita Electric Corporation of America; and Ron Meyer, president and COO, Universal Studios. I am very proud to have this important digital technology research facility in my district, adding to Hollywood's recognized leadership in the entertainment industry.