Henry Waxman

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I have some serious reservations about H.R. 3925, the Digital Tech Corps Act, in its current form. But before I explain my objections, I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) for his efforts to work with us and other members of the minority on this legislation. Although I ultimately have a different view about the merits of this bill than the gentleman from Virginia, he tried to accommodate our concerns in several areas and did adopt many of the suggestions that the minority made. I thank him very much for that. I want to, in addition, thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) for all his hard work to improve this bill. Unfortunately, as the bill stands, it blurs the line that should exist between the government and the private sector. When we fail to draw a clear line between the public and the private sectors, we invite abuse and conflicts of interest. There has been an attempt to deal with these problems by applying Federal ethics rules to the private sector employees who enter the Federal workforce. But I am not sure that rules alone will prevent abuses. As it is currently drafted, this bill allows technology executives from drug companies, oil companies, and other sectors of corporate America to work in the Federal Government for up to 2 years. During that time, these corporate executives can have unrestricted access to sensitive government databases. Under this bill, a technology executive from Merck could gain access to the confidential data on drug prices that Pfizer and other drug companies are required to submit to the Department of Health and Human Services. Or a technology executive from Monsanto could gain access to confidential data on pesticides maintained by the Environmental Protection Agency. There is a reason we have and need a vigorous Federal workforce. The Federal Government is a repository of an enormous amount of sensitive information. We can trust this information to career civil servants who have dedicated their lives to public service, but can we trust this information to corporate executives on loan from the private sector? This bill is written on the assumption that everybody will be honorable and no one will try to take advantage of the system. But after all we have seen, and I want to refer to the Enron scandal, is it a reasonable assumption to make that everybody is going to do the proper thing and we can simply trust people? I have also grave concerns about the precedent of sending Federal employees who are paid by the taxpayers to work for private sector employers for up to 2 years. I think this is a new and potentially egregious form of corporate welfare. Congress has enacted tax breaks for corporations worth billions of dollars, direct subsidies worth billions more, and special interest deregulation initiatives. Under this bill as written, we will have a new type of Federal subsidy for industry: Federal employees, paid with taxpayers' money, can be sent to private corporations for up to 2 years to help those corporations with their information technology work. Let me share with you one story. The Wall Street Journal reported on March 1, this year, 2002, about an obscure Federal program that allowed a fellow named Ron Medford, an employee of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, to work as a lobbyist for Segway, a private company, while still remaining on the Federal payroll. According to the Wall Street Journal, and I quote, ``There was good news for the Segway team: Mr. Medford was so impressed by their handiwork, he took a taxpayer-funded sabbatical to assist with a massive lobbying effort aimed at persuading States to pass special laws favoring Segway.'' Is this how we should be spending our constituents' tax dollars? Does it really make sense for the taxpayers to be paying for Mr. Medford to lobby for the Segway company? Yet this is what this bill does. It would send hundreds of Federal employees to work for private companies for up to 2 years at taxpayers' expense. Indeed, not only would the taxpayers be forced to pay the salary of these Federal employees during the time they are working for private corporations, the taxpayers could also be expected to pay a daily per diem to cover the costs of their housing and meals. Some of my colleagues have said that this is not a serious problem because the bill calls for an exchange of private sector workers for Federal workers, so the cost of sending public workers to the private sector is offset by the benefit of having private workers serve the public sector. But the problem is that there is no requirement for a one-to-one exchange in the bill. In fact, there are no limits at all on the number of Federal workers who can be sent to the private sector. My colleagues have also suggested that sending Federal workers to the private sector makes sense because they will receive good training. But, again, there is no such requirement in the bill. I think the whole idea of the bill, as I have heard it described, of a digital tech corps, is to have people learn from the private sector and those in the private sector to learn and be trained in government practices so both can be improved. Mr. Chairman, I think this is a well-intentioned bill, but it is an imperfect one; and in its current form it does not protect confidential government information, and it does not protect the taxpayer. I will be offering an amendment when we get to the amendment part of the process in the consideration of this legislation. My amendment will prevent corporate executives from having access to trade secrets or other sensitive government information. This to me is a commonsense amendment. Further, we will ensure that any placement of a Federal worker in a private sector company will accomplish a legitimate training objective; and we will make sure that we have standards for a training program, not simply a blank check to send government- subsidized, paid-for employees to do the work for private corporations. It may not even have any resemblance to what they are doing for training them or benefiting the taxpayers, which seems to me the ultimate reason for ever using taxpayers' dollars. I urge all Members to support this important amendment when we get to it. I thank the gentleman from Texas and the gentleman from Virginia for their leadership on this legislation. I hope we can continue to work together on it and make it a better bill.

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

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment does not prohibit outplacements of Federal workers to the private sector, but it does ensure that any such outplacements accomplish a training objective and a cost-effective way to improve the training of Federal employees. Mr. Chairman, my amendment enjoys the support of the American Federation of Government Employees, AFGE; the National Treasury Employees Union, and the AFL-CIO. Bobby Harnage, President of the AFGE, stated ``The Waxman amendment manages to both eliminate opportunities for conflicts of interest and help agencies to develop the in-house capabilities they need to manage their information technology programs and contracts.'' Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to adopt this amendment.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment addresses two serious flaws in H.R. 3925, the Digital Tech Corps Act. The first part of the amendment protects the integrity of trade secrets and other sensitive government information. The second part of the amendment protects the Federal taxpayer. The first part of the amendment prohibits corporate executives from having access to trade secrets and other sensitive commercial information when on detail in the Federal Government. This amendment is needed because the bill blurs the line between Federal functions and private sector functions. Without this amendment, private sector technology executives can gain unrestricted access to Federal databases, including databases containing trade secrets. The Department of Health and Human Services maintains a database containing confidential data on the lowest prices that drug companies charge their best customers. Under the bill, an information technology executive from Merck could gain access to this database to learn the lowest prices charged by Pfizer and other Merck competitors. Does this really make sense? We have the Federal Civil Service because our system of government recognizes there are certain functions that need to be performed by career civil servants who have only the interests of the public in mind. One of these core functions is handling sensitive government information. Allowing private executives to have access to these databases is an invitation for abuse and conflicts of interest. The bill purports to address these concerns, but it does not succeed. It applies the Federal conflicts-of-interest laws to the private sector executives while they work in the Federal Government, but these laws are so porous they have become virtually meaningless. For example, the White House counsel has ruled that the Federal ethics laws allowed Karl Rove at the White House to meet with Enron executives about energy policy while he held stock in that company. The Committee on the Judiciary added language to the underlying bill which prohibits private sector workers from disclosing trade secrets that they came to know when on detail to the Federal Government. Well, this is an important symbolic gesture, but it is virtually unenforceable. There is no practical way to police what the Merck executive tells his colleagues after he returns to the private sector. We cannot unscramble an egg in the same way we cannot guarantee that confidential information is not abused once it is made available to those with a financial stake in the information. That is why my amendment is needed. It protects against abuse and conflicts of interest by saying that the private sector executives cannot have access to trade secrets and similar commercially sensitive information while working for the Federal Government. The second part of the amendment establishes a comprehensive training program for IT workers and ensures that any outplacement of Federal employees makes sense in the context of the overall training needs of the government. The bill's purported purpose is to train the Federal workforce. However, the bill does not have any requirement that the assignment accomplish any training objective or that the Federal worker do any work that would benefit the Federal Government. The bill is a blank check to send Federal workers, at taxpayers' expense, to serve the private sector. The only precondition is that there be a request from the private sector. Well, this is a brand-new form of corporate welfare. It surpasses tax breaks and corporate subsidies. Under this bill, we are creating a system where the Federal taxpayer will be paying the salaries of people who are working for private companies. And here is a little known fact: Not only does the taxpayer have to pay the salary and benefits of these employees, but they can also get a per diem of $200 or more a day to cover their food and housing expenses while working for the private sector. My amendment addresses this flaw. It establishes a comprehensive training program for information technology workers run by the Office of Personnel Management. This training program is a well thought-out training program that is taken directly from H.R. 2458 which was introduced by the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Technology and Procurement Policy, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner). The only change I made to the Turner proposal is to add a provision that says explicitly that outplacements in the private sector can be included as part of the training program.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to clarify why we do not, as submitted to us, have elaborate protections for information that private sector employees might have access to if they come here to work at the Federal Government level. We are told we have protections because there is a lifetime ban from disclosing this information. Well, the fact of the matter is, that is practically unenforceable. Someone comes and works at the Department of Health and Human Services from a pharmaceutical company, from a private pharmaceutical company, and they see the database which is kept confidential about the lowest prices. We prohibit them from going back to their previous job and giving them that information. How are you going to enforce it? It would be far better not to have them have access to it. They can do other things at the Federal level without having access to that kind of confidential information. The same would be true with the Environmental Protection Agency. If you come from a chemical company and the EPA has data on chemicals, it may well put a private sector corporation at a financial advantage if their employee comes back and gives them that information. So the Committee on the Judiciary insisted on a restriction against disclosure. What I think we need is to have a restriction on the access to that information. The bill purports to address a lot of these concerns about conflicts of interest by saying, at least the proponents of the bill, by saying we can simply rely on the ethics rules for Federal employees; that is good enough. We say when a private sector employee comes to work for the Federal Government, that they have all the ethics rules apply to him or her. Well, these ethics rules are very narrowly drafted. They are narrowly drafted with the expectation we are talking about Federal employees. But even as drafted for Federal employees, they are so narrow that they become fairly ineffective. Let me give an example. Carl Rove, who works at the White House, was able to meet with Enron executives about energy policy while he held stock in the company. The White House counsel said that the Federal ethics rules permitted that. I think that is quite remarkable. But that is the standard we are now going to hold for people who are coming from the private sector, where they clearly can get an advantage and they more obviously have a potential conflict of interest. The gentleman from Virginia submitted that this is the same, that we have the same procedures for Federal contractors. Well, it really is different when you have a Federal contract. If you have a Federal contract, you have an understanding in the agreement that they cannot disclose information, they cannot have a conflict and because of that conflict use information that they get at the Federal level for their own private gain. That is enforceable. You can go after a contractor for violation of the contract. You are never going to be able to go after an individual for disclosing information to his former and then subsequent employer in the private sector, because you will really never quite know what was said by that individual. You would be able to know what a contractor does if a contractor engages in a violation of the ethics rules, and then you have a party you can go after for failure to live up to the contract. So I think that the proposal we are going to be offering by way of an amendment helps this legislation. It narrows the potential for abuse, and it protects the taxpayers, to make sure if we are sending a Federal employee to go work in the private sector, that there is a genuine training program and simply not a new form of corporate welfare where our taxpayer dollars and our constituents' tax dollars are going to be used to pay for somebody to go just work for somebody in the private sector so they do not have to pay for that individual. I think that would be a real abuse of tax dollars. So I wanted to clarify that I think these amendments are very much needed, and we will be offering them shortly, and I hope Members will support them.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today, Holocaust Remembrance Day, to share a remarkable story and honor two true heroes of the Holocaust. On April 14, Congregation Adas Israel, a synagogue here in Washington, D.C., will add the name of the Madna family to its Garden of the Righteous Monument honoring people who rescued Jews during the Nazi occupation. Rob Madna will represent his family at the ceremony. During the war, the Madna family took in a nine-month old Jewish infant, Alfred Munzer, who was born November 23, 1941 in The Hague, capital of the then Nazi-occupied Netherlands, two weeks before Pearl Harbor, and two weeks before the United States declared war on Japan and Germany declared war on the United States. By September 1942, when it had become apparent that the Munzer family must go into hiding, baby Alfred was taken in by Indonesian neighbors, the family of Tole Madna. The Madna family cared for him when his parents and older sisters were deported. Their nanny, Mima Safna, cared for Alfred and three Madna children. Mima, a woman who could not read or write and who hardly spoke any Dutch, became Alfred's mother. She kept a knife under her pillow and vowed that if ever the Germans came to get the boy, she'd kill him and then herself. They called him Bobby, his ``schullnaam''--his name in hiding. Dr. Munzer's memories of life in the Madna house are happy ones. His toddler's view of the outside world was limited to what he could see by peaking through the mail slot in the front door. Even so, he found adventure hiding quietly in a small cellar under the stairs while the house was being searched by Nazi soldiers. Although his sisters tragically died in concentration camps and his father died a few months after the war ended, Alfred and his mother were reunited in August 1945 when he was just three and-half years old. Nanny Mima stayed with them for a short time until her death and Alfred and his mother came to the United States. He is currently is a physician specializing in diseases of the lung and is Director of the Pulmonary Medicine Department at Washington Adventist Hospital in Takoma Park, Maryland. He is also a past president of the American Lung Association. Little is known about Tole Madna and Mima's religious beliefs. Madna adopted Catholicism very late in life and Mima probably was Muslim. Neither had an advanced education. Neither had any great material wealth. But both had the ability to hear and answer a human need. They exemplified the meaning of righteousness. They were unwilling to ignore the cry of a nine month-old child. Mr. Speaker, please join me in honoring the memory of Tole Madna and Mima Saina, two true heroes of the Holocaust. Their story is a testament to the very best in human values.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1542, which would free the monopoly Bell Operating Companies to offer high- speed data service in their regions. There is a very simple principle at stake today. Deregulation is good when it results in more marketplace competition. Deregulating a monopoly, however, destroys competition, impedes innovation, and hurts residential and business consumes. What's good for a monopoly is only good for the monopoly. H.R. 1542 would eviscerate key requirements of the 1996 Telecommunications Act and very quickly eliminate the fledging competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs), which only came into being after enactment--and due to the promise--of the Act. H.R. 1542 would also prohibit any federal or state regulation of rates and service quality for high-speed data services and leave consumers completely unprotected from monopoly abuses. More than fifty percent of the information carried on telephone wires today is high- speed data traffic, and that percentage is growing daily. In addition, with the convergence of voice, data, and video technology, information in the future will be carried on the same networks that now carry high-speed data traffic. As a technical matter, regulators will be unable to distinguish between voice and data traffic. As a result, under H.R. 1542, the Bell Operating Companies could escape all consumer protection and service quality regulation. The proponents of H.R. 1542 have told us that the battle for Internet data service is really a fight between the giant cable companies and the giant local telephone companies. I couldn't disagree more with this assessment. Our nation will thrive if companies are allowed to operate under marketplace conditions that encourage the greatest number of technologies and providers for consumers. Unfortunately, H.R. 1542 draws the blueprint for duopoly control of the networks, and that would be a terrible outcome for consumers everywhere. Competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs), Internet service providers (ISPs), consumer groups, and state public utilities commissions all strongly oppose H.R. 1542. I urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation. I also urge members to vote for the Conyers/ Cannon amendment, which is the only amendment that will be offered on the floor that effectively addresses the bill's most serious shortcomings.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 90th anniversary of the founding of Hadassah. With over 300,000 members worldwide, Hadassah is both the largest women's organization and largest Jewish organization in American history. Founded in 1912 by Jewish scholar and activist Henrietta Szold, Hadassah has evolved as a leading volunteer women's organization, committed to Israel, Jewish continuity and American ideals. In Israel, the Hadassah Medical Organization in Jerusalem has become a world-renowned center of medical excellence. With two hospitals, five schools, outpatient clinics, research facilities and a community health center, Hadassah is a lifeline for Israeli families and an important partner with the United States in medical research and training. Sadly, the deterioration of the situation in the Middle East has also made the Hadassah hospital into the premiere trauma center for the victims of the vicious suicide attacks by Palestinian terrorist groups. Reconstructing bodies and healing wounds, the Hadassah doctors and nurses have saved numerous lives and restored the futures of many youth wounded in these gruesome attacks. Hadassah's work also extends worldwide, with its nurses and doctors dispatched to work with refugees in Rwanda and to treat victims from the terrorist bomb blast at the Jewish community center in Buenos Aires. Here in the United States, Hadassah is committed to health awareness for its members and for women and girls in underprivileged communities. Hadassah organizes education and screening for diseases like breast cancer and osteoporosis. It sponsors youth reading programs and mobilizes volunteers on national policy issues like school vouchers, genetic discrimination, and a woman's right to choose. I am proud that Southern California boasts one of the largest concentrations of Hadassah members with over 20,000 activists in nearly 100 chapters. I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Hadassah's 90th anniversary and in congratulating Hadassah on its tremendous impact worldwide.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I underscore my support for this legislation because I believe there ought to be full reporting by those who give donations, whether it is to campaigns or even to libraries. We need disclosure because some may have political hope that in exchange for their contribution or gift, they may receive some influence. That is why I strongly support, and hope my colleagues who are going to support this bill will join me in supporting, similar legislation regarding Members of Congress, when they set up foundations or libraries or other attributes to themselves and receive contributions from outside sources. They also should be required to report donations. At one point we had such reporting in this legislation, but we did not want to in any way endanger this piece of legislation because it is a good bill. It is the right thing to do to pass this bill. But I hope to get full disclosure of those donations to Members of Congress, just as we want full disclosure of those donations to Presidential libraries. All foundation donations, all donations similar to campaign contributions, should be disclosed because the giver may hope to gain some influence. All donations ought to be on the table, ought to be publicly disclosed. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues today in supporting the bill that is before us. I hope later in the year we will be able to carry the other bill to the House floor so we will follow in the path that is being set in this legislation, that the public has the right to know who is funding what when it comes to anything to do with politics. I think that is the way to assure the American people that they have all information and the American people will make of it what they will.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H.R. 577. This bill began with the principle that all contributions to foundations that support Presidential libraries should be made public. That is a principle that I strongly support. Mr. Speaker, this bill is a bipartisan product. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) have worked with us to produce a bill both sides can support. The gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), the ranking member of the subcommittee, made an especially valuable contribution. The gentlewoman's amendment lowered the threshold for reporting to $200 during the years of active fund-raising. Unfortunately, this bill does not include a provision that would apply these principles of disclosure to foundations in the names of Members of Congress. Such an amendment was considered and adopted in committee. However, it was dropped from the version that we are considering today. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) has agreed to work with us to develop that concept as stand alone legislation, and I look forward to bringing it to the floor later this year. We live in an era where large corporations and wealthy individuals use money to gain access to policymakers. That access can easily turn into influence, and the process of developing public policy can become distorted. Today's bill is a step forward in curbing these trends. H.R. 577 provides the public the information it needs to judge the behavior of those it elects. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, we rise today to pay tribute to two dear friends, Janet and Maxwell Hillary Salter. Janet and Max are being honored on January 17, 2002 by the University of Judaism (UJ) in Los Angeles for their tremendous commitment to Jewish, business and civic activities. We have known Janet and Max for more than three decades and can not imagine two more deserving recipients for this prestigious honor. The evening will be particularly meaningful because the Sigi Zierling Institute at the UJ will be unveiled due to the generosity of Janet and Max. The institute will provide a national center to explore the moral and religious impact of the Holocaust for future generations. And, it will solidify and honor the memory of Sigi Zierling, who was a beloved philanthropist, entrepreneur, scientist and Holocaust survivor. Sigi is survived by a loving family who have also been instrumental in furthering the mission of the UJ. Janet and Max have been leaders in philanthropy for as long as we can remember. They are patron members of the UJ and for more than ten years they hosted parties for Jewish singles affiliated with the UJ. They are also patron members of the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, Museum of Contemporary Art and Platinum Members for the Center Theater Group. They are avid supporters of the Beverly Hills Education Foundation, the Maple Center, the Venice Family Clinic and Happy Trails. Their tireless dedication to the arts and education has made them integral members of Los Angeles, civic community. Janet is a multi-talented published cartoonist who also coproduced, co-wrote and directed two major musicals for the City of Beverly Hills. She was awarded the first Golda Meir Award in 1978 by the State of Israel Bonds. She has served as a board member and chair of the Beverly Hills Fine Art Commission for nine years. She currently serves as president of the Beverly Hills Theatre Guild and is on the board of the Greystone Foundation. Max served two years as mayor of Beverly Hills during his eight year tenure on the City Council. He is the chairman of Beno's, a downtown Los Angeles apparel company, chairman of the Fashion District Business Improvement Board and member of the board of directors of Diagnostic Products. He is also on the advisory board of the Jewish Community Foundation and past president of Temple Beth Am. Like Janet, Max's influence is felt wherever he dedicates his talents. Janet and Max have lived in Beverly Hills for over 40 years. They have three wonderful children, all graduates of either Berkeley or UCLA, and twelve grandchildren, six of whom were at Berkeley at the same time. We are delighted to honor our dear friends as they receive a much- deserved honor from the University of Judaism and ask our colleagues to join us in wishing them all the best for the future.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, it is with great reluctance that I support S. 1438, the Fiscal Year 2002 Defense Authorization Conference Report. While I believe that passing this bill is important for the war effort in Afghanistan and the brave men and women deployed to defend the American people and our strategic interests around the world, I staunchly oppose the tremendous increase in funding the bill provides for the development and deployment of a National Missile Defense (NMD) that would violate the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty with Russia. The tragic attacks committed against the United States on September 11, 2001, demonstrate that terrorism is the gravest threat facing America today. It is clear that ensuring the safety of our citizens and our cities will require the development and deployment of military resources capable of facing challenges much more diffuse than isolated missile threats by rogue nations. I am highly disappointed that this Conference Report contains $8.3 billion for missile defense, a 56 percent increase over the current level, while authorizing only $6 billion for anti-terrorism programs. I am also concerned that it authorizes funds for the deployment of a National Missile Defense (NMD) system in Alaska, a move that would automatically violate the ABM treaty requirement that anti-ballistic missile systems only be installed in the vicinity of our national International Continental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) complex, based in North Dakota, or near the nation's capital in Washington, DC. These policies are a poor reflection of our nation's priorities. We should be using this opportunity to focus on military intelligence, preparedness against chemical and biological weapons attacks, and nuclear threat reduction. By diverting so many resources toward a faulty missile defense program plagued by massive cost-overruns and technological deficiency, we compromise our investment in other vital areas and jeopardize the cornerstone of U.S.-Russia military cooperation at a time when coalition building and international alliances are critical. In June 2001, my staff on the Government Reform Committee conducted an analysis of the Coyle Report, a comprehensive study conducted by the Pentagon's chief civilian test evaluator that revealed serious weaknesses in the NMD test program. The report also demonstrates the futility of scheduling deployment when basic elements of the system, such as the ability to defend against countermeasures, multiple engagements, and against accident or unauthorized launches, have repeatedly failed. Considering that the ABM treaty is not holding back the design and development of the technology needed for NMD, nor slowing the testing of the system, I think it is shortsighted and irresponsible for the Conference Report to authorize measures that would violate the treaty or for the Bush Administration to propose unilateral withdrawal. At the same time, at the critical stage in our nation's history, I believe the U.S. military and its brave soldiers deserve full Congressional support. Although I have opposed previous Defense Authorization bills, I support this bill because it contains the largest single-year increase for military personnel in nearly a decade and invests in technology and hardware that will keep our soldiers safer in the field. Such attention to pay, housing allowance, and family assistance, give recognition to the sacrifice they make and help our military compete for the best and brightest. I commend all of the soldiers and reservists from Los Angeles, California, and across the country for their dedication, and I urge the Bush Administration to take immediate action to change its misguided course on the ABM treaty.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3005, the so-called Bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority legislation, also known as ``fast track,'' proposed by Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas. While I believe deeply in the benefits of free trade, this shortsighted bill ignores the need to protect workers and the environment in our international trade agenda. It also jeopardizes the environmental, health, and safety laws here in the United States. I have supported a number of trade agreements negotiated by Presidents in the past, but fast track is unique. As the mechanism that authorizes the President to negotiate trade agreements, it is the one chance Congress gets to direct the objectives and the scope of the U.S. trade agenda for the next seven years. It is the primary opportunity for Congress to design trade goals that reflect American ideals for human rights, labor rights, and environmental protection. It is outrageous that recent trade agreements have given foreign companies veto power over our regulatory authority at the local, state, or federal level. I voted against the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), in part because Chapter 11 of the agreement gave foreign companies the right to sue the United States for trade-related financial losses. The result has been devastating to California and the Thomas bill would allow the same provisions to be placed in future agreements. It is under Chapter 11, for example, that a Canadian corporation is suing the United States seeking $970 million in compensation because of California's decision to phase-out MTBE, a toxic gasoline additive that leaked from pipelines and storage tanks, poisoning California water supplies and rendering them unusable. In my district, the City of Santa Monica faced MTBE contamination of its drinking water supply and has had to import more than 80% of its drinking water. Sadly, this story has been repeated in other parts of the state, as well as other parts of the country. The Canadian company, which is trying to prevent the phase-out of MTBE, is seeking $970 million in compensation, asserting that California's phase-out impeded its business interests and profits. The case is pending before a closed door NAFTA tribunal with no possibility of consideration or appeal in U.S. courts. I strenuously object to any proposal that would subjugate the health and safety of American citizens to the profit goals of international corporations. I strongly believe that the U.S. should not be allowed to undermine the health, safety, and environment laws of other countries either. I have opposed efforts by U.S. trade negotiators who have acted on behalf of special interest groups to challenge foreign laws, such as those designed to protect food supplies curb smoking, and increase access to life-saving HIV/AIDS medication in developing countries. For example, U.S. trade negotiators, acting on behalf of the pharmaceutical companies, have tried to use international trade law to challenge governments in sub-Saharan Africa that are struggling to provide affordable medicines to people suffering from the AIDS epidemic. In southern Africa as many as 1 in 4 are suffering from AIDS, more than twelve million children have been orphaned by the disease, and the overall rate of infection is eight times higher than the rest of the world. Yet, the Thomas bill completely ignores this crisis and would allow the trade challenges to continue. Furthermore, the Thomas bill would direct the President to challenges prescription drug pricing systems that have been implemented in Canada, Europe, and other countries to keep prescription drug prices from spiraling out of control. In fact, it may even jeopardize efforts here in the United States to provide affordable Medicare prescription drug benefits to seniors. And in addition to possibly putting our public health and safety in jeopardy, the bills shows complete indifference toward labor rights. Meekly suggesting that countries should enforce their own labor laws, the bill only promotes the perpetuation of weak labor laws that often allow the exploitation of child and slave labor, and discriminatory treatment and harassment of labor activists in violation of the five core standards of the International Labor Organization (ILO). If we want to work toward a progressive world trading system, we should be working for a world economy that lives up to higher standards instead of sinking to lower ones. We should be expanding and updating our negotiating agenda to reflect the dramatic changes that have taken place in just the last few years since the previous Fast Track expired in 1994. There are now new items on the table at the WTO regarding intellectual property, antitrust law, investment rules, electronic commerce, product/food labeling, and technology transfer. The United States has set new precedents by including environmental and labor standards in the trade agreement with Jordan and trade expansion measures with countries in the Caribbean and Africa. We should not be prevented from pursuing these provisions in future trade agreements. We should be insisting on more Congressional influence and oversight over the trade agenda. Unfortunately, the Thomas bill would minimize our role and stifle any meaningful opportunity for Congress to revoke fast track if the President violates or ignores key negotiating objectives. The bill also does nothing to increase transparency of the trade negotiations, deliberations, and rulings veiled in secrecy. It fails to advocate the publication of negotiating texts, or address the critical need for changes to dispute settlement mechanisms that are not even open to the submission of amicus brief by non-governmental entities that have an interest in the deliberations. The Democratic substitute offered by Mr. Rangel and Mr. Levin, which the Republican leadership unfairly blocked him from offering, seriously looks at ways to address all of these matters. It would take advantage of the scarce opportunity fast track offers for Congress to shape the future of a world trade system with leadership from the United States on issues important to workers and the environment. The bill calls for specific rules to ensure that it would not be a trade violation for a country to enforce a Multilateral Environmental Agreement (MEA), such as the treaty prohibiting trade in endangered species. It would also make progress on the issue of investor provisions by clarifying that investors protection rules cannot be used to undermine legitimate health, safety, and environmental laws. In addition, the Rangel-Levin bill would explicitly clarify the right of WTO members to adopt measures necessary to respond to national emergencies like the HIV/AIDS epidemic by increasing access to essential medicines, and set at least some limitations on challenges to prescription drug price containment. Moreover, the bill would provide a much stronger role for Congress by providing a structural biennial review of ongoing negotiations, and a process for the House to bring a resolution rescinding trade promotion authority to the floor for a vote if it is supported by at least one- third of the House. At a time when we have the chance to move a progressive U.S. trade agenda forward, I regret that the Republican leadership squandered the opportunity to work with Democrats to achieve legislation that enjoyed strong bipartisan support. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against the Thomas bill and in support of the Rangel-Levin alternative.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. I rise in strong support for H. Con. Res. 280 and join my colleagues in condemning Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian terrorists responsible for the massacre of innocent Israeli civilians. In the past six months alone, Hamas suicide bombers have murdered teenagers at the discotheque in Tel Aviv, commuters on a rush hour bus ride in Haifa, pedestrians at a busy intersection in Afula, families eating lunch at a pizza store in Jerusalem, and a street filled with young Israelis and Americans out for a Saturday night in the heart of the nation's capital. On a daily basis, the Tanzim and Force 17, Yasser Arafat's Fatah paramilitary forces, shoot at Israeli motorists on their way to work, school, or returning to their homes. Instead of arresting, prosecuting, and outlawing these terrorists, Yasser Arafat has deliberately given them free reign, safe harbor, and license to organize and carry out heinous attacks. Instead of condemning anti-Israel incitement in Palestinian media, schools, and mosques, he has contributed the free flow of hatred that seeks to legitimize violence. And in doing so, he has turned the Palestinian Authority into nothing short of the Taliban. The horrific events of September 11 have tragically brought home to all Americans the terrorism that Israel has long been suffering. Our solidarity has never been stronger or more important. Now more than ever, we must renew the common purpose, strategic goals and democratic ideals that are the cement of strong U.S.-Israel relations. We must join together with Israel in defending our citizens, our values, and our future from the shadow of terrorism. That is why this resolution determines that the United States should break off all diplomatic relations with the Palestinian Authority unless immediate action is taken to destroy the Palestinian terrorist network and arrest the perpetrators of these terrorist crimes. Yasser Arafat must be held accountable, and there is no reason to contemplate the creation of a Palestinian state unless he can demonstrate that the terrorism will end. So far he has been unwilling to achieve this for even seven days, giving neither Israel nor the United States reason to be confident that he has the will or ability to do so permanently. But one thing is certain--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. Now is the time for us to pressure Yasser Arafat to crush the terrorist networks within his grasp, and urge all civilized nations of the world to abandon the ongoing efforts by Arab and Islamic states to isolate Israel in this time of crisis. Just hours ago in Geneva, an international conference convened to condemn Israel for violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which was adopted in response to Nazi atrocities during the Holocaust. The agenda included biased determinations on the final status of Jerusalem, Palestinian refugees, and the imposition of a United Nations observer force. Only yesterday, the U.N. General Assembly overwhelming voted for resolutions advocating the creation of a Palestinian state, Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights, and rejecting Jerusalem's status as the capital of Israel as ``illegal and therefore null and void.'' These one-sided determinations are irresponsible and counterproductive. They devastate the constructive role the international community could play in ending the violence and terrorism that have taken so many American and Israeli lives. I commend the Administration for staunchly opposing these forums, and I applaud its actions yesterday to freeze the assets of the charities and banks raising funds in the United States to support the terrorist activities Hamas and other Palestinian groups. Today we must do more. We must pass H. Con. Res. 280 and let Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian terrorist organizations know that there is a line that separates outlaws from the rest of civilized society and they have crossed it.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I have listened to the New Yorkers who have argued to defeat the rule so they can have consideration of an amendment to help New York. I think we ought to defeat the rule as well so that we can help the post office. It is terrific that the House is now going to get its mail. We are spending the money to make the mail safe and to protect all of our staff who open the mail. But what about everybody else in the country? Will their mail be safe? If we defeat this rule, we can pass an amendment that will provide funding to make the mail safe for everyone. But the Republicans say we do not have the money. It is funny, but the Republicans have found $1.4 billion to give to IBM, $1 billion to give to Ford, $600 million to the Texas utility companies, and over $500 million for Chevron and Texaco in the outrageous giveaway bill that passed 2 weeks ago. But somehow we cannot find $500 million for the Postal Service to make the mail safe for everyone. None of this makes sense, but if we defeat the rule and pass the Obey amendment, we can begin to restore sanity to our priorities.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Federal Advisory Committee Transparency Act. I am joined by my colleague Representative Robert Matsui who serves as the Ranking Democrat on the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Social Security. Also cosponsoring this bill are Representatives Schakowsky, Owens, Kanjorski, Maloney, Doggett, Pomeroy, and Becerra. Concern over the number of advisory committees and the lack of balanced advice and public participation began during the Kennedy administration. President Kennedy issued Executive Order 11007 requiring agencies to be accountable for an orderly process of seeking outside advice. That executive order became the foundation for the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972. The goal was to assure that in meetings special interests would not unduly influence the operations of government. The Act was passed to prevent the government from consulting only with energy company executives when developing energy policy. The Act was passed to prevent mining companies from being the sole source of advice on mining in wilderness areas. Unfortunately, the intent of that legislation has been reversed by regulations issued last summer. Twice now, the President's Commission on Social Security has met behind closed doors. There was no announcement that these meetings were taking place, and no record of who came before the commission members in these secret meetings. There are no minutes that record the subcommittee deliberation of the members as they chart the future of the Social Security system. That is a clear violation of the intent of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, but permissible under the new regulations issued by the Bush Administration. The Bush regulations allow advisory committees to establish subcommittees, which are not subject to the sunshine provisions that the full committee must follow. An advisory committee doesn't have to tell the public when it creates subcommittees. Those subcommittees can meet in private with whomever they choose without public notice. The Social Security Commission split into two groups--half of the members in one and half in the other--allowing them to meet as subcommittees without public scrutiny. Secret meetings breed suspicion. The issues before the Social Security Commission are serious and difficult ones. If reform of the Social Security system is necessary, and the Commission so recommends, the public must be certain that the proposed changes have been developed after careful deliberation of all points of view. We don't know who is attending these secret meetings, and consequently, don't know who or what arguments are shaping the commissioners' opinions. To maintain confidence in the fairness of these deliberations, the Social Security Commission should immediately stop its secret meetings. To assure the public that no special interest group is shaping the conclusions, the Commission should immediately disband these artificial groups. Sound public policy is best made with full public involvement. This bill will both strengthen the advisory committee process, as well as restore integrity to the efforts to strengthen the Social Security system.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I was very distressed to hear about the passing of our former colleague, Bob Eckhardt. I am probably one of the few Members today serving that served at the same time with him. He was a member of the Committee on Commerce. I must say he was a unique Member. He was a scholar, a man of enormous integrity, an expert in areas like the War Powers Act and the energy issues. He was a man you could always go to and get a clearheaded point of view. He was very, very thoughtful and highly regarded. He was eccentric, which made him even more beloved by those of us who knew him. I want to join the gentleman in extending my condolences to his family, and my regrets to the people of Texas and to the House of Representatives and the American people for our loss of Bob Eckhardt.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, before the Greenwood-Eshoo bill which is now under consideration, there was a law called the Greenwood-Waxman bill. It was passed in 1997. It was an attempt to get the pharmaceutical companies to do studies on the dosage and the reactions of drugs for children. I supported that bill, as the original cosponsor, but I think it was a mistake because we are overpaying for the work of the pharmaceutical companies to test for children. The cost of exclusivity, which was the price we said we would pay for them to do these tests, has exploded beyond any relation to the cost of a drug company doing the pediatric studies. In the case of one heartburn drug, exclusivity provided between a 30,000 and a 60,000 percent return on the company's investment. The trial was estimated to have cost between $2 and $4 million. The exclusivity is estimated to be worth more than $1.2 billion. In turn, this windfall contributes to skyrocketing insurance premiums, rapid growth in Medicaid budgets and the soaring out-of-pocket costs for seniors on Medicare. As with each of the delays the drug companies use to postpone generic competition, each time we extend patents or exclusivity, it costs patients money. If we look at just 25 more drugs that are coming up for exclusivity soon, this law will add at least $11 to $12 billion to the Nation's health care bill. The entire budget of the National Institute of Child Health is less than one-tenth of these windfalls, in fact, less than gained for the heartburn drug alone. This is irresponsible public policy. It is bad for the budget, bad for helping us secure a Medicare drug benefit, and bad for the American public that pays for these drugs. But the supporters of the drug say, if we do not pay this highway robbery to the drug companies, the companies will stop doing research on children. That is not true. We do not have to pay that much. In subcommittee and in committee, I offered an amendment to provide generous, but not excessive payments to the drug companies to do pediatric trials. We would have paid them twice the cost of doing the trial, 100 percent return on their investment should be enough for anyone. Although I offered to accept a friendly amendment that would have made it 200 percent, 300, 400, or 500 percent profit, but not even that was good enough for the pharmaceutical manufacturers. This debate is about how seriously distorted the pharmaceutical marketplace has become, and no wonder senior citizens and people with disabilities and insurers are screaming about drug costs. I am particularly concerned that this legislation results in a windfall for drug makers without even getting the public health and pediatric benefits that were promised. If we are getting anything back from drug companies, it is supposed to be new information for parents and pediatricians. But as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) has pointed out, even drugs that are given exclusivity have not been getting their labels changed. He has an amendment that would link the exclusivity to the actual label change. The label change is important. That is what we are paying for. It is the information about the pediatric trials; and the drug companies are getting their side of the bargain, an extended patent period. But the consumers, especially the pediatricians, are not getting what we are bargaining for, which is the information for them to make the best judgment for children. I would have hoped that the House would have given a chance to debate and support the Stupak amendment and not put this bill on the suspension calendar. I think on the substance of it, it is a bill that is poorly thought out in light of the experience we have had, and I will oppose the bill. But I would also oppose it because the suspension calendar is not the appropriate place for this legislation where an important amendment like the Stupak amendment should be given a chance to be debated.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding time. I, unfortunately, am going to say some words about this legislation that are not quite consistent with the views that have been heard on the floor. I am in opposition to this bill. I certainly want to honor the memory of our departed colleague, Congressman Solomon; but I am opposed to the expansion of NATO. I was opposed under President Clinton, and I continue to oppose expansion under President Bush. The countries named in this bill for NATO candidacy have made incredible progress since the fall of the Soviet Union toward Western ideals and economics, but it should not make them automatically superior candidates for NATO. First of all, NATO is founded on the premise of collective defense. These countries are still undergoing major political and economic changes, and I do not think we should be promising to go to war on behalf of countries when we do not know what kind of conflicts we may be drawn into. Second, NATO was created to defend against the Soviet Union, a threat that obviously no longer exists. If at this critical time the U.S. is seeking cooperation from Russia, it is counterproductive in my opinion to take actions that Russia would perceive to be aggressive. In this legislation that is before us today, we are talking about admitting into NATO countries that would bring NATO right next to the border with Russia. Thirdly, the expansion would put the strategic advantage of the alliance at risk. NATO was created for rapid Allied response to a threat. Its tactical strength will be compromised when the inclusion countries with inexperienced militaries make it more difficult to mobilize. The high cost of NATO expansion would also divert U.S. defense investment to militaries of foreign countries at a time when we should be focusing on our own. And there are other institutions that are more valuable to the Eastern European countries than NATO, the European Union, the World Trade Organization, and other international institutions that will help promote their economic and democratic development. NATO expansion will drain their treasuries toward massive military expenditures to come up to NATO's standards. The bottom line is that NATO expansion is more of a liability than an opportunity for the United States and for the countries this bill seeks to add to the alliance. For that reason, I will oppose the legislation.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2454, a bill that would name the U.S. post office facility on Crenshaw Boulevard in Los Angeles after my good friend Julian Dixon, who served in the House from 1979 until his death last December. Julian was a giant of a man and a great legislator. I was fortunate to have the opportunity to know and work with him for three decades. He never asked for public credit or press attention. He simply worked hard and effectively for our country and the people he served. His leadership over the years on the Appropriations, Defense, Ethics and Intelligence Committees and in the Congressional Black Caucus earned him the respect and admiration of all Members of Congress. Julian never failed to rise above partisanship for the good of the Congress and our nation. Congressman Dixon was a great statesman. I urge the passage of this fitting tribute.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I will not even take the 2 full minutes, but I do want to rise in support of this amendment. This amendment would add resources to help rural communities improve their drinking water and wastewater infrastructure. Water quality is a critical component of public health, and an important determinant of the standard of living. It also contributes to the economic viability of rural communities. According to the EPA, small community water systems will need a large infusion of funding to meet the needs of their residents and economies over the coming years. This amendment would provide an additional $45 million a year. It is a modest amendment. It would take less than 2 percent of the fixed payments designated for commodities and redirect the resources to these other underfunded programs that benefit rural communities. I urge all my colleagues, whether they are from an urban area or a rural area, to support this much needed amendment.