Henry Waxman

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, Alan Cranston, who died at the age of eighty-six on December 31, 2000, represented California in the United States Senate from 1969 until 1993. In addition to a distinguished political career, Alan was an accomplished writer and journalist, businessman, international advisor, and leader in the movement to eliminate nuclear weapons. Alan was effective in everything he pursued because he had the intelligence to understand conceptual complexities and the pragmatism to achieve what he wanted. He and Pat Brown rejuvenated the California Democratic Party and led it to power in 1958. My own experience with Alan goes back to 1960 when I was a student at UCLA and he was a model for young Democrats to follow. We were both active in the California Democratic Council, a grassroots party organization, and I was grateful for the personal support he gave me a number of years later when I decided to run for public office. I learned from Alan that the enactment of good legislation could not be accomplished without attracting good people to our party. He was a visionary in knowing how to help build a party to lead California, but he also worked hard on the everyday nuts and bolts decisions that would make it happen. He brought the same skills to the U.S. Senate in 1968. He was a visionary in shaping the debate on great issues--the Vietnam War, nuclear proliferation, the rights of the disabled, medical care for veterans--and he served as the Majority Whip for fourteen years. He was a consummate vote counter and leadership strategist, and he had a hand in crafting and moving some of the most important legislation enacted while he served. Lance Murrow once said, ``Leaders make things possible. Great leaders make them inevitable.'' By every estimation, Alan Cranston was a great leader.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, this fall, the House Government Reform Committee majority released a report on the Department of Justice that contains numerous inaccuracies and that unfairly smears several individuals. The minority filed views that discuss the unsubstantiated allegations in the majority's report. The majority's report prompted letters from one of the individuals named in the report, and from an attorney for another of the individuals named. Both letters take issue with the majority's assertions. In the interest of a complete record on this matter, I submit into the Record a December 11, 2000, letter from C. Boyden Gray, and an October 31, 2000, letter from Barry B. Langberg. Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, Washington, DC, December 11, 2000. Hon. Dan Burton, Chairman, Committee on Government Reform, House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: We were dismayed to see your Committee Report, ``Janet Reno's Stewardship of the Justice Department,'' made final without providing us with the right to review and comment as promised in response to my letter of September 21, 2000. Accordingly, there is no point in detailing here the errors in that Report that we would otherwise have identified. We would nevertheless make the following observations which we would hope you could make part of the record: (1) as the Minority Report makes clear, Rebekah Poston never asked her investigators to do anything illegal (``[I]n fact, contrary to the Majority's allegations, no evidence received in the Committee demonstrates that Ms. Poston instructed private investigators to break the law''); (2) throughout the hearing, the two investigators at issue, Philip Manuel and Richard Lucas, each testified under oath that Ms. Poston had never asked them to do anything which they thought was illegal; (3) the Department of Justice ultimately granted her request for information by informing her that here was no information to provide in any event; and (4) it was entirely improper to hold and structure a hearing for the evident and sole purpose of provoking a claim of Fifth Amendment rights in order to create the impression that Ms. Poston had done something improper. Accordingly, we respectfully request that you include this letter as part of the Congressional Record relating to the above-described report. Sincerely, C. Boyden Gray.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, the City of Los Angeles recently lost a generous philanthropist, Mr. George C. Page. Mr. Page was the founder of the George C. Page Museum of La Brea Discoveries and was a generous donor to Children's Hospital and Pepperdine University. I would like to take this opportunity to honor the contributions Mr. Page made to our community, and note in particular how influential his museum has been on the education of children of Los Angeles. I'd also like to submit for the record a copy of an article the Los Angeles Times ran on November 30, shortly after Mr. Page's death. [From the Los Angeles Times, Nov. 30, 2000] Obituary: George C. Page; Philanthropist Founded La Brea Museum (By Myrna Oliver) George C. Page, who hitchhiked to Los Angeles as a teenager with $2.30 in his pocket, made a fortune with his Mission Pak holiday fruit gift boxes and land development and then donated millions to house treasures of the La Brea Tar Pits, which fascinated him, has died. He was 99. The founder of the George C. Page Museum of La Brea Discoveries in Hancock Park, he was also a major benefactor of Children's Hospital, Pepperdine University and other institutions that aid young people. He died Tuesday night in Carpinteria, Pepperdine spokesman Jerry Derloshon said Wednesday. An eighth-grade dropout whose two children died as infants, Page, along with his late wife, Julliete, vowed to use what he earned to help children, first to survive and then to get an education. He gave his money and name to the $9-million George C. Page Building at Childrens Hospital; the George C. Page Youth Center in Hawthorne; the George C. Page Stadium at Loyola Marymount University; numerous buildings at Pepperdine, including two residence halls and a conference room; and programs at the USC School of Fine Arts, as well as the $4- million La Brea museum. But it was the museum, which opened April 15, 1977, that captured Page's passion and became his permanent monument. ``This is so living, so immediate,'' he told The Times in 1981, stretching his arms wide to indicate the distinctive burial-mound structure. ``It's like giving flowers that I can smell while I'm still here.'' The saga of George C. Page, how he wound up in Los Angeles and how he made the money to put his name on those donations, all started with an orange. The piece of fruit was given to him by his teacher when he was a 12-year-old schoolboy in his native Fremont, Neb. ``I was so awed by the beauty of that piece of fruit that I said, `I hope someday I can live where that came from,' '' he recalled. So at 16, he headed west. He lived in a $3-a-month attic room in downtown Los Angeles, ate Hershey bars and 10-cent bowls of bean soup fortified with crackers and ketchup. He paid for all that--and saved $1,000 in his first year-- working days as a busboy (which he first thought meant driving a bus) and nights as a soda jerk. Come Christmas, the youth decided to send some of California's beautiful fruit to his mother and brothers in Nebraska. Innately adept at packaging, he lined the box with red paper and decorated it with tinsel. Thirty-seven other roomers in his boardinghouse offered to pay him if he would fashion similar packages to send to their Midwestern relatives. He was in business. Page launched Mission Pak in 1917, pioneering the now-ubiquitous marketing of California fruit in holiday gift packages in an era when fresh fruit was rarely seen during the frozen winters back East. Working alone, he bought the fruit, wrote the advertising copy and found new ways to ``appeal to the eye to open the purse.'' One marketing tool was the jingle that became a part of Southern California history: ``A gift so bright, so gay, so light. Give the Mission Pak magic way.'' On an occasional day off, Page played tourist--going to ostrich races in Pasadena or marveling over the oozing pools of asphalt known around the world as La Brea Tar Pits. Why, he mused, must a person travel seven miles to see the bones removed from those pits, poorly displayed as they were, at the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History in Exposition Park? It was more than half a century before Page could realize his vision of properly showcasing the 40,000- year-old fossils. In that time, he learned a great deal about packaging, Visiting France when he was 21, Page encountered newly invented cellophane and began importing it to enhance his gift boxes. During World War II, he became an expert in dehydration, distributing dried fruit and other foods to the armed forces and then to the public. He started a company to make spiffy auto bodies, salvaging battered but functional cars. After he sold Mission Pak in 1946, Page delved into developing, building industrial and commercial parks and leasing space to the defense and aerospace industries and the federal government. Packaging was even important in real estate, he decided, in the form of fine landscaping to enhance complexes. By the time he was ready to create his museum, Page was already retirement age--so old that some county officials feared he wouldn't finish what he started. But even in his later years, Page walked miles each day, saying a person should take care of his body as one does a fine watch. He bought a motor home and made it his Hancock Park field office, arriving at 7 a.m. daily for three years to supervise the construction of the museum. He studied architectural firms and hired two young men, Willis E. Fagan and Franklin W. Thornton, who proposed a ``burial mound,'' half underground, that would conserve energy and preserve the park's green space. He hired an expert from Brigham Young University and others who had worked on Disneyland attractions to develop steel-rod and wire methods of presenting the prized fossils so that they would not be just ``bones, bones, bones.'' And with a promise of free plane fare, rent and a television set, he lured a Pennsylvania couple to Los Angeles to paint murals of La Brea as it had appeared when the skeletons belonged to live animals roaming the area. He examined the most comfortable materials--carpet to walk on, not marble--and limited the museum to something that could be easily covered in about an hour. When solving a problem required money, Page gave that as well as his expertise. When his $3-million building threatened to remain empty because of county officials' penury, he donated $1 million more for the exhibits. He even rescued one discarded skeleton of a dire wolf from the trash at the Museum of Natural History. And he paid for the expensive wrought-iron fence constructed a few years after the museum opened to prevent night-time motorbike riders from scaling the sodded sides of the building, preserving the slopes for children (not to mention adults) to roll down during the day. Page remained a hands-on patron years after his museum dream was realized. He knew where a photographer could get the best angle for a shot of a giant sloth and could tell at a glance if a plant in the atrium was sickly. And avid benefit-goer himself, Page opened his museum to charities for fund-raisers and found that the well-heeled loved dancing around the imperial mammoth and the 9,000-year-old woman and among the dire wolves, saber-toothed cats and condors. Although experts initially questioned the self-described museum buff's credentials for creating the facility, they eventually had to admit that Page knew--or at least was willing to learn--what he was doing. Along with the 5 million visitors to the museum in its first 10 years were scores of museum directors from around the world, eager to inspect what the amateur had wrought. ``The thing that made me feel awfully good,'' the dapper, slightly built Page told The Times in 1982, ``[was that] they said, `George Page, we have never been in a museum with things displayed so well.' '' The philanthropist is survived by a son, John Haan of Carpinteria, and two grandsons.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, To be able to practice five things everywhere under heaven constitutes perfect virtue. . . . [They are] gravity, generosity of soul, sincerity, earnestness, and kindness.-- Confucius We are diminished by the death of our former colleague, Sid Yates, who was by every estimation a model legislator and one of the most decent men to have served in the House of Representatives. Sid devoted his life to public service and spent nearly a half century in Congress working to better the lives of all Americans. As Chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, he worked hard for the protection of our environment and the enrichment of our culture. He was committed to bringing cultural opportunities to Americans of all backgrounds in every part of the country and he made sure that the federal government played a strong role in nurturing the development of talented artists. Sid always treated his congressional colleagues with respect and courtesy. In recent years, when federal funding for the arts became a polarizing issue, Sid responded to intolerance with tolerance and kindness. He was always an honest broker. He never questioned or impugned his opponents' motives. He was unwavering in his beliefs. And, he never abandoned principle for temporary political gain. Sid left us a strong legacy of achievement on which to build and an example of true statesmanship.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to commend my constituent Margaret Marketa Novak for her dedicated contributions to Holocaust education and remembrance, and acknowledge the recent completion of her autobiography One Left, Just One. For over 30 years, Ms. Novak has been active in Holocaust issues, as a speaker, an author, and a member of Holocaust survivor support organizations. Her volunteerism and commitment exemplify the belief she notes in her book that ``Surviving is not enough, it's what we do with our lives that counts.'' As the only survivor in a family of nine that perished in the Holocaust, Ms. Novak has lived a challenging life, as so many others who, like Ms. Novak, relied upon faith, fear and courage to survive the ghetto, Auschwitz, the DP camps, and the uncertain trip to settle in the United States. Although nothing can vindicate the murders of the innocent six million who perished, or reclaim the lost childhood she documents in her book, Ms. Novak's resolve to share this history is a testament to the determination of all of the survivors who struggled to reclaim their lives after the war and put them on record for future generations. Our community is grateful to Ms. Novak for her devoted service. I extend her my best wishes for the future.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, submit the following letter into the Congressional Record, ``Response to Comments by Rep. Curt Weldon Regarding the Government Reform Committee, Minority Staff, report, Unsubstantiated Allegations of Wrongdoing Involving the Clinton Administration.'' House of Representatives, Committee on Government Reform, Washington, DC, October 27, 2000. Hon. Curt Weldon, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Rep. Weldon: On September 28, I spoke on the House floor regarding a series of unsubstantiated allegations by members of Congress that have unfairly smeared the reputations of numerous individuals. I also entered into the Congressional Record facts relevant to many of these sensational allegations. As you know, one of the allegations I discussed was your claim in a 1998 floor statement that the President could have committed ``treason,'' one of the most serious crimes an American can commit. You responded in a floor statement of October 2, 2000. You claim that I made ``totally false'' statements relating to your ``treason'' remarks. On September 28, I described your ``treason'' statement as follows: In May 1998, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) made remarks on the House floor regarding allegations that the political contributions of the chief executive officer of Loral Corporation, Bernard Schwartz, had influenced the President's decision to authorize the transfer of certain technology to China. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) described this issue as a, ``Scandal that is unfolding that I think will dwarf every scandal that we have seen talked about on this floor in the past 6 years.'' And said further, ``This scandal involves potential treason.'' You have not disputed this characterization of your remarks. You also did not dispute my statement that when a member of Congress makes such a sensational allegation, it can have tremendous impact. In your case, your ``treason'' remarks were not only part of the Congressional Record, but were publicized in national media reports. You have, however, taken issue with two sets of facts that I put into the record on September 28 after describing your ``treason'' remarks. First, I said: The Department of Justice examined the allegations relating to whether campaign contribution influenced export control decisions and found them to be unfounded. In August 1998, Lee Radek, chief of the department's public integrity section, wrote that ``there is not a scintilla of evidence or information that the President was corruptly influenced by Bernard Schwartz.'' Charles La Bella, then head of the department's campaign finance task force, agreed with Mr. Radek's assessment that ``this was a matter which likely did not merit any investigation.'' You said on October 2 that my statement was wrong, pointing to a passage in a July 16, 1998, memo by Mr. La Bella that discussed two documents potentially relevant to the Loral/ Schwartz allegations. My statement, however, quoted two subsequent Department of Justice memos--an August 12, 1998, memo by Mr. La Bella and an August 5, 1998, memo by Mr. Radek. Further, Mr. La Bella himself said that his July 16 memo took the view that the Loral/Schwartz matter ``likely did not merit any investigation.'' Discussing his July 16 memo (the ``Interim Report'') and Mr. Radek's August 5 memo (the ``Review''), Mr. La Bella stated on August 12, 1998: The Review shares the view expressed in the Interim Report that this was a matter which likely did not merit any investigation. In May 2000, Los Angeles Times investigative reporters examined the Justice Department's investigation of the Loral/ Schwartz matter. In a May 23, 2000 article entitled Internal Justice Memo Excuses Loral, They wrote: During a May 2 hearing, [Senator] Specter commented that LaBalla has pushed, in his But the impression was wrong. The LaBella report and related documents, which were obtained earlier this year by The Times, tell quite a different story. In fact, by the time LaBella delivered his report to Atty. Gen. Janet Reno in the summer of 1998, the task force had effectively excused Schwartz and Loral from the campaign finance investigation. . . . ``Poor Bernie [Schwartz] got a bad deal,'' one former task force investigator said in an interview. ``There was never a whiff of a scent of a case against him.'' As you can see, therefore, I was entirely accurate in my summary of the Justice Department's investigation. It is your description of the evidence--not mine--that distorts the facts. You also took issue with the second set of facts I put in the record relating to your ``treason'' remarks. In my September 28 statement, I said: The House select committee investigated allegations relating to United States technology transfer to China and whether campaign contributions influenced export control decisions. In May 1999, the committee findings were made public. The committee's bipartisan findings also did not substantiate the suggestion of the gentleman from Pennsylvania of treason by the President. In your October 2 remarks, you asserted, ``Now, in fact, our Cox committee did not even look at this issue.'' This statement is remarkable, particularly since you were a member of the Cox Committee yourself. As support for your claim, you cited language in the Cox Committee report which notes that the Committee did not end up looking at attempts by the People's Republic of China (PRC) to influence technology transfers through campaign contributions. Your ``treason'' remarks, however, centered on allegations relating to contributions by Bernard Schwartz, not the PRC. And, indeed, the Committee did examine these allegations. As the Committee report notes, Mr. Schwartz was one of the individuals interviewed or deposed by the Committee. The Committee also interviewed or deposed Loral Vice President Thomas B. Ross. As noted in a May 24, 1998, New York Times article regarding the Loral/Schwartz allegations, Mr. Ross was the author of a February 13, 1998, letter to national security advisor Sandy Berger that urged a swift decision on the waiver issue. In fact, you drew attention to this very letter by Mr. Ross in your October 2 remarks. Your assertion that the Cox Committee ``did not even look at this issue'' is therefore simply wrong. The fact is, the Cox Committee report expressly mentions the Loral/Schwartz allegations, but does not confirm your conclusions in any way. This lack of findings in the report underscores the fact that your ``treason'' remarks remain unsubstantiated even though several investigative bodies have examined the Loral/Schwartz matter. When a member of Congress makes a wild allegation, the burden should be on that member to support it. It is tremendously unfair--and contrary to our system of justice-- to presume that the burden is on the target of the allegation or others to disprove unsubstantiated allegations. In this instance, the facts show that you made an inflammatory statement about the President in 1998 using the word ``treason'' and your statement remains unsubstantiated. I hope this helps clarify the record. Sincerely, Henry A. Waxman, Member of Congress.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am supporting H.R. 2884 because it contains provisions of vital interest to the American people, such as reauthorizing the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. However, I am concerned about the inclusion in this legislation of the National Oilheat Research Alliance Act of 2000. This legislation essentially creates a new tax in order to increase the power of the Washington D.C.-based trade association, the National Association for Oilheat Research and Education. This legislation authorizes this trade association to hold a referendum on the establishment of the National Oilheat Research Alliance. Voting rights are based on volume of sales, and the Alliance is established upon an approval of the industry representing two-thirds of sales by volume. This has the effect of giving the biggest interests in the oilheat industry the most voting power. Once the Alliance is established, an ``assessment,'' which is essentially a tax, is levied on the sale of fuel oil. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has estimated that this would amount to $16-$17 million annually. The legislation authorizes the Alliance to bring suits in Federal court to ensure all distributors and retailers comply with the assessments. The use of these funds would be directed by industry towards programs (1) to enhance consumer and employee safety and training, (2) to provide for research, development, and demonstration of clean and efficient oilheat utilization equipment, and (3) for consumer education. The legislation contains explicit language stating that funds cannot be used for advertising, promotions, or consumer surveys in support of advertising or promotions. However, there is no precise line between advertising and consumer education. For example, television and radio spots educating consumers about the benefits of oilheat might not appear to violate the prohibition on advertising. Under this legislation, the National Association for Oilheat Research and Education is designated by name as the sole organization who designates at least 56 of the 61 members to the Alliance. The Alliance would determine the use of all of the $16-$17 million in assessments. By levying a tax on fuel oil sales which is enforceable in Federal courts, the oilheat industry is assured that all sectors of the industry--from small retail marketers to large wholesale distributors-- will contribute to their national efforts--whatever they decide them to be. It is a virtual certainty that these costs will be passed onto consumers. The National Oilheat Research Alliance Act of 2000 is an anti- consumer mandate that consolidates power in an entity controlled by the biggest interests and will favor their concerns over those of consumers and small businesses. It levies a new tax on consumers for which they will receive little or no benefit and give those funds to a trade association controlled D.C.-based entity to do with as they see fit. This is an inappropriate use of congressional authority. I hope we can correct this mistake in the future.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Does it help us move toward peace in the Middle East for the United States to deny the reality of what is happening today in the Middle East and to turn its back on our staunchest ally, the only democracy in the Middle East? I have to tell Members of this Chamber that we should not, in the earnest hope for peace, turn our backs on Israel. We ought to adopt this resolution and stand in solidarity with the people of Israel. Let us look at the events. A peace process brought, through our efforts, the head of the Palestinian Authority and the Prime Minister of Israel together to try to work out a settlement. Prime Minister Barak offered the most generous settlement that anyone ever imagined he would; and he was rejected by Arafat, the President of the Palestinian Authority. Chairman Arafat was unresponsive to this proposal and then went home and, either because he did not have the ability to stop it or the conviction to rein it in, permitted the paramilitary forces to engage in mob fury. Chairman Arafat's unresponsiveness to the tremendous proposals put forth indicates that he has very little credibility as a partner for peace. What else did he do? He opened up the prison doors and let 100 Hamas and Islamic Gihad prisoners out, which is a green light for them to strap bombs on their backs, go into civilian populations and blow up people, to engage in the worst kind of terrorism. Mr. Speaker, the loss of life on both sides has been tragic, but the refusal of Chairman Arafat to do anything now except to run to international organizations that have always been biased against Israel and urge them to adopt resolutions to internationalize the conflict, to try to point fingers at Israel alone, makes it incumbent on us in the United States, the only superpower in the world, the only country that says to people around the world, follow us into democracy, stick with us and we will stick with you; it is incumbent upon us to stand with Israel and to urge the parties to go back to the table if they can, but only understanding that the United States supports Israel's right to exist and supports them in this terrible conflict.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, it's a great pleasure for me to pay tribute to Mary Rainwater, the executive director of the Los Angeles Free Clinic, for her tireless service to the Los Angeles community. Mary oversees the delivery of vital health services, including free medical and dental care, HIV education, counseling and testing, and prenatal care to tens of thousands of people each year. Her agency also provides job placement and training, low-cost legal assistance, and psychological counseling to support some of the most vulnerable members of our community. Before coming to the LA Free Clinic, Mary served as an adult literacy tutor, a guidance counselor for inner city youth, and a psychiatric social worker for homeless mentally ill individuals. In nearly eleven years as executive director, Mary's guidance has helped the LA Free Clinic double its budget and increase fourfold the number of patient visits its professionals provide. Without the LA Free Clinic, many of these patients would not have access to the cancer screening, family planning, and mental health services they need. The U.S. Department of Health and Human services has recognized the Hollywood Center, which opened under Mary's watch, as a ``Model That Works'' to provide comprehensive services to at-risk youth. In addition to her work with the LA Free Clinic, Mary serves the community through her memberships of the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors, the Board of Directors of the Community Clinic Association of Los Angeles County, Free Clinics of the Western Region, and the California Primary Care Association's Executive Committee. The people of Los Angeles and our entire nation owe Mary a debt of gratitude for her tireless work and tremendous record of achievement.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I came to the floor originally to speak against the rule, but now I understand that the rule will be amended and the language that was added to the Senate bill will not be included so that this legislation will go directly from the House to the President. We hear he is anxiously awaiting the opportunity to sign it. I was the author of the legislation originally to provide the breast and cervical cancer screening. That was during the Bush-Quayle administration. We had their support for that legislation, but we could not get them to agree to help fund the treatment for women if they found that they had cancer. It is now 8 years later and in a bipartisan and maybe unanimous move we are finally going to allow low- and moderate-income women who are screened for breast and cervical cancer under the existing program to have assured treatment under this legislation. This bill would provide them the hope by allowing States to cover them under Medicaid to get the care that they need. It makes sense. It is in fact a cruel hoax to say to a woman, ``Go get screened but if it turns out you have cancer, if you don't have insurance, you're on your own.'' Unfortunately, in these last 8 years, the number of people who are uninsured has grown 1 million each year. So we have more and more people uninsured. At least for those women who have breast and cervical cancer, once they are screened under the existing program, we will now provide medical services, lifesaving medical services for them. It would be a travesty to do otherwise. I am pleased now to support the rule when it is amended and to support the legislation. It is long overdue. I look forward to having the President sign this legislation into law.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I want to follow what the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) just had to say. This drug reimportation section is really a sham. It is a partisan ploy by the Republicans to pretend like they are doing something by allowing consumers to bring in lower price drugs sold in Canada and elsewhere into the United States. But I have a good example. I have two pharmaceutical products. They are the exact same brought. One is Prilosec. It is the number one drug in the United States. The other one is the same drug, it is also made by the same company, but the Canadian version goes by a different name called Losec. This bill allows the pharmaceutical companies to get the Canadians to agree that they will not allow Losec to come into the United States under the name Prilosec. Under the rules, the consumer would pay the higher price still in the United States because they would not be able to purchase that drug that sold in Canada for a cheaper amount. I would urge that we defeat the previous question so we can get a rule to make this drug reimportation section really work for consumers. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my opposition to the rule on the Agriculture appropriations bill. This rule does not allow language to close the loopholes in the drug reimportation provisions reported by the conference. I ask my colleagues to defeat the previous question on this rule so that we will have an opportunity to amend the drug provisions. The legislation we are considering today only pays lip service to a very real problem facing millions of Americans across this country--the high costs of prescription drugs. The legislation before us today is a sham. Instead of actually solving the problem, it gives America's seniors a placebo and hopes that they won't notice until after the elections. The reimportation provision is riddled with loopholes. One loophole allows drug manufacturers and their intermediaries to price discriminate against U.S. pharmacies and importers. Under the bill, it would be legal for drug companies to require their foreign distributors to charge U.S. importers more than foreign purchasers. A second loophole allows drug makers to block importation by denying U.S. importers access to FDA-approved labels. I have two packages of pills here. One is from the U.S. and one is from Canada. They are the same drug--an ulcer medication made by Merck and called Prilosec in the U.S. Prilosec was No. 1 selling drug in the United States in 1999. The U.S. version costs much more than the Canadian version. The whole purpose of the bill is to allow the import of the cheaper Canadian version. But under this bill, the Canadian version of Prilosec can't come in. You see, the label is different. The drug is called Losec in Canada and the label has an entire section of information written in French. So the label isn't FDA-approved. There's nothing that the U.S. importer can do to fix this. The importer will be barred from using the correct label by U.S. copyright and trademark law. This isn't an isolated case. My staff has analyzed Canadian labels and found that virtually none of the Canadian labels would meet FDA labeling requirements. I ask unanimous consent that this staff report be printed in the Record. Our seniors deserve better than this. They deserve better than false promises of cheap drugs. They deserve more than false hopes that they will be able to buy the drugs they need. Prescription Drugs With Foreign Labels The drug importation provisions in the Agriculture Appropriations bill contain several significant loopholes. One major loophole is created by the fact that foreign drug labels generally differ from the FDA-approved labels that must be used in the United States. In effect, the bill creates a labeling ``Catch-22'' for would-be U.S. importers. As the bill is currently drafted, U.S. importers cannot import foreign drugs with labels that differ from the FDA- approved label. But U.S. importers cannot relabel the drugs with FDA-approved labels because doing so would violate the copyright and trademark protections held by the drug manufacturers. An amendment offered by Rep. DeLauro to give U.S. importers the right to use the FDA-approved labels was voted down on a party line vote (9-6) during the conference. The following discussion provides more information about this labeling ``Catch 22,'' along with examples of foreign drugs with labels that differ from the FDA-approved labels. Selling drugs without the FDA-approved label is misbranding. Prescription drug labels provide basic information on the drug, its formulation, the manufacturer and distributor, and how it is used. Every country has different labeling requirements. In the United States, when a company files an application for approval of a new drug, the company submits the label to FDA. Any deviation from the label submitted by the manufacturer without prior FDA approval constitutes misbranding of the drug. The penalties for misbranding under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act include fines and imprisonment. Some drugs are sold under different names in the different countries. Prilosec, an ulcer medication made by Merck, was the number one selling drug in the United States in 1999. It is much more expensive in the United States ($120.45 for thirty 20 mg pills) than in Canada ($51.60) or Mexico ($34.50). However, in Canada and Mexico, the drug is sold under a different brand name: Losec. Because of this difference in names, the Canadian or Mexican labels are not the FDA-approved label. Bringing Prilosec into the United States with the Canadian or Mexican label is misbranding. Drug labels can be in different languages. In the United States, approved drug labels are in English (sometimes FDA also approves labels with some information in Spanish). In Mexico, labels are in Spanish; in Italy, labels are in Italian. Canadian drug labels are bilingual, in French and English. Labels that are not in English, or that are bilingual English-French labels, differ from the FDA-approved label. Distributing drugs with these labels is misbranding. Drug labels can have different identification numbers. In the United States, all approved drugs receive an FDA identification number, known as a National Drug Code number. This number appears on virtually all U.S. labels. In Canada, however, approved drugs have a different number, a Drug Information Number (DIN). The DIN appears on all Canadian labels. Because the U.S. NDC code and the Canadian DIN are different. Canadian labels differ from the FDA-approved label, and selling a drug with a Canadian DIN in the United States constitutes misbranding. Drugs are often distributed by different entities in different countries. When a manufacturer submits an application for approval of a new drug, the manufacturer must identify all the distributors of the drug. In many cases, the distributors of the drugs in the Unites States are different from the distributors in many countries. For example, the popular diabetes drug Glucophage is distributed in the United States by Bristol-Myers Squibb. However, when sold in Canada, the drug is distributed by Nordic Laboratories. If the Canadian distributor is not approved by FDA, drugs with labels listing this distributor differ from the FDA-approved label and cannot be sold in the United States. Drugs can have different indications. For some drugs, the indication information provided on labels from other countries is not the same as the U.S. information. For example, Dilantin, an anticonvulsant manufactured by Parke- Davis, contains the following information on the Canadian label: Adults, initially 1 capsule 3 times daily with subsequent doses individualized to a maximum of six doses daily. Usual maintenance dose is 3 to 4 capsules daily. Children over 6 years of age, 1 capsule three times daily or as directed by physician. The U.S. label contains slightly different information for adults and no dosage information for children. The U.S. label states: ``Adults, 1 capsule three or four times daily or as directed.'' Because the United States and Canadian versions of the drug label contain different dosage information, the drug cannot be sold in the United States with the Canadian label.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill because we need legislation that will improve the flow of important safety information from motor vehicle and motor vehicle parts manufacturers to federal regulators and consumers. This bill does not do all it should, but it does represent a modest step forward. And even more importantly, further improvements are possible in discussions with the Senate as we craft final legislation. There are several deficiencies in the bill that should be addressed by the conference committee in the event that Senator McCain's bill, S. 3059, passes the Senate. Foremost among these are provisions that have the appearance of criminal penalties but will, in all likelihood, have no meaningful impact. The criminal provisions in this bill would only extend to a particularly exotic variety of false statements. It does nothing to punish a manufacturer's willful introduction of a deadly and defective product onto the market. Nor does it punish a manufacturer's knowing failure to act to prevent a deadly and defective product from reaching consumers. That is the type of conduct that the government needs to deter and needs to punish through the criminal law. In fact, the criminal provisions in this bill are probably unenforceable. To obtain a conviction under this bill, a prosecutor would first have to prove up all of the elements of a criminal false statement with respect to an auto safety reporting requirement. That conduct is already punishable by imprisonment under existing law, 18 U.S.C. 1001. In addition, a prosecutor would need to prove that the accused made the false statement with (1) the specific intent, (2) to mislead the Secretary of Transportation, (3) with respect to safety related defects, (4) that caused death or grievous bodily harm to an individual. That's not all. On top of all that, a prosecutor must also prove that the accused failed to correct the error or omission within a reasonable time. How long a reasonable time is, and what exactly constitutes a correction is anyone's guess. The bill leaves it up to the Secretary of Transportation. If those aren't enough obstacles to successful enforcement, there's more: The Justice Department may only prosecute a violation of this statute at the request of the Transportation Secretary. A prosecutor can not commence a prosecution if the Secretary fails or refuses to act. There are so many obstacles to prosecution in this bill that it would probably never be used successfully, and it will probably do little to deter the egregious misconduct that we're all concerned about. We can and must do better than that. The provisions Senator McCain has included in S. 3059, while not perfect, are at least a better approach. The Senate bill focuses, not on false statements to government regulators, but more appropriately on a manufacturer's intentional failure to act to prevent a serious accident. That bill would make it unlawful for a director, officer, or agent of a manufacturer to authorize, order, or ratify the introduction of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment if he or she knew that the company had failed to comply with a safety standard or failed to report a defect; knew the condition of a vehicle created an ``imminent serious danger of death or grievous bodily harm;'' and knew that the condition actually caused grievous bodily harm or death. I believe this provision more directly addresses the problem and will more effectively deter a manufacturer from ignoring serious safety defects simply to pursue a profit. If and when this bill reaches the conference committee, we should at least adopt the Senate provision. I intend to work with Senator McCain to further improve the criminal penalty provisions he has already included. This legislation also fails to provide the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration with the civil enforcement provisions that they say they need. NHTSA has been hamstrung by its inability to assess civil penalties administratively. Almost every other regulatory agency has this authority, including the Environmental Protection Agency, the Food and Drug Administration, and agencies within the Department of Transportation. While NHTSA has requested this authority, the House Commerce Committee has denied it. This creates the baffling situation where members of Congress are attacking NHTSA for not enforcing motor vehicle safety laws more aggressively, while denying NHTSA's request for adequate enforcement powers. Finally, there are also lost opportunities in this legislation. In the early 1970's, NHTSA issued a roof crush resistance standard for passenger cars. This standard is outdated and fails to model what happens in real-world crashes. This is a very serious matter. According to NHTSA, in 1998 there were almost 11 million vehicle crashes involving rollovers. Over 3.6 million of those accidents resulted in injury or death. Rollovers played a part in over 15 percent of the passenger car crashes that resulted in fatalities. Rollovers occurred in 36 percent of sport utility vehicle accidents that resulted in fatalities. This legislation should require NHTSA to issue a new roof crush standard. Our cars have changed remarkably since the 1970's, and it's just commonsense that our safety standards ought to keep pace with these changes. Mr. Speaker, this is the time to pass strong legislation that provides meaningful protection for the public. I urge my colleagues to pass this bill so that we can work with the Senate to craft legislation that families across our country deserve.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 2311, the Ryan White CARE Act Amendments of 2000. As the original author of the Ryan White CARE Act and the coauthor of the House reauthorization bill, H.R. 4807, I want to applaud the Members and the staffs on both sides of the aisle for moving this crucial legislation with such speed and bipartisan cooperation. I want to recognize the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) for his commitment to reauthorizing this Act and his leadership in fashioning the compromises that allowed us to move the bill I think virtually unanimously through the House and to get an agreement with the Senate. He made this consensus legislation a reality. The gentleman from Florida (Chairman Bilirakis), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Bliley), and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) have lent their unqualified support. And numerous Members, including the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez) and the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen) have helped ensure its passage. Mr. Speaker, the original CARE Act was enacted in the wake of a decade of lost opportunities. I told this House in 1990 that, ``Having missed our opportunity to provide an ounce of prevention, we must now prepare to pay for pounds and pounds of cure.'' Today, the AIDS epidemic is everywhere. It threatens everyone. But there is still no vaccine and there is still no cure. Nevertheless, the Ryan White CARE Act has made an enormous difference. It provides care to tens of thousands of Americans living with HIV/AIDS. It helps their families cope with the burdens of AIDS and HIV infection, and it provides urgently needed funding to community providers and hospitals to combat the epidemic. Today's overwhelming bipartisan support for the CARE Act demonstrates that Congress understands how crucial it is to the health and welfare of our country. Mr. Speaker, this legislation preserves the best features of the CARE Act while making reforms to better respond to a changing epidemic. First and foremost, this legislation better addresses the needs of individuals with HIV who have not developed AIDS. In 2004, we will determine whether to use nationwide data on HIV infection in the CARE Act. I believe this will happen, and I have been told by the State of California that they will have such data by 2004. We also call on States and cities to do more to reach those who are not receiving care and to serve the needs of our historically underserved communities. We call for ending lingering disparities in care and for better coordination of HIV/AIDS treatment with prevention. We have also focused CARE Act programs on the needs of vulnerable populations. Funds will be allocated to better reflect the proportions of women, children, infants and youth with HIV. I expect this will increase such funding for those populations in the future. This legislation also greatly expands our national effort to eliminate the perinatal transmission of HIV/AIDS. These new funds will help bring the number of babies born with HIV in our country down to zero. We also redirect funding to cities and States in the greatest need of assistance. The title I and title II ``hold harmless'' provisions have been revised to ensure a manageable transition to funding allocations which better reflect the epidemic. At the same time, potential disruptions in patient care are minimized. And the title I, title II, and AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP) supplemental grants will assist cities and States with the greatest need of funds. These are the principal reforms to the CARE Act. They will expand access, improve quality, and enhance services for individuals with HIV and AIDS. Regrettably, Mr. Speaker, much more could be done and much more needs to be done. We must expand Medicaid to provide care to individuals with HIV who have not developed AIDS. We must lead the global search for an effective HIV vaccine and a cure for AIDS. And we must provide resources and our hard-earned expertise to help other countries combat the epidemic. For today, though, I am pleased that we will fulfill the expectations of Jeanne White, the mother of Ryan White, and of so many Americans living with HIV and AIDS by reauthorizing the Ryan White CARE Act. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Ryan White CARE Act Amendments. As the original author of the Ryan White CARE Act and the co-author of the House reauthorization bill, H.R. 4807, I want to applaud the Members and the staff on both sides of the aisle for moving this crucial legislation with such speed and bipartisan cooperation. I want to recognize Dr. Coburn for his commitment to reauthorizing the CARE Act. He has made this consensus legislation a reality. Chairman Bilirakis and Mr. Brown, Chairman Bliley and Mr. Dingell have lent their unqualified support. And numerous Members, including Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Towns, Mr. Eshoo, Mr. Rodriguez and Dr. Christensen, have helped ensure its passage. Mr. Speaker, the original CARE Act was enacted in the wake of a decade of lost opportunities. I told this House in 1990 that, ``Having missed our opportunity to provide an ounce of prevention, we must now prepare to pay for pounds and pounds of cure.'' Ten years ago, there were those who spoke of the AIDS epidemic as a thing of the past. There were those who dismissed the disease as a danger to others, and not themselves. And there were those who opposed the Ryan White CARE Act. Mr. Speaker, they were wrong then, and they are wrong today. The AIDS epidemic is everywhere. It threatens everyone. It is devastating the globe from Russia to subSaharan Africa. And there is still no vaccine. There is still no cure. But in the face of these challenges, the CARE Act has made a difference. The CARE Act provides care to tens of thousands of Americans living with HIV/AIDS. If helps their families cope with the burdens of AIDS and HIV infection. And it provides urgently needed funding to community providers and hospitals to combat the epidemic. Today's overwhelming bipartisan support for the CARE Act demonstrates that Congress understands how crucial it is to the health and welfare of our country. Let me highlight the important ways this legislation preserves the best and proven features of the CARE Act, while making important and substantial reforms to better respond to a changing epidemic. I am particularly pleased that this consensus House and Senate legislation reflects virtually all of the provisions and agreements reached by this House in H.R. 4807. Most important of all, this legislation better addresses the needs of individuals with HIV who have not developed AIDS. With 40,000 new infections every year and improved prospects for delaying the onset of AIDS, the number of new deaths from AIDS has declined but the number of individuals with HIV is rising inexorably. In response, this legislation calls on the Secretary of Health and Human Services to determine in 2004 whether we have nationwide data on accurate and reliable cases of HIV infection which can be used in allocating CARE Act funds. I believe this will happen, and I have been told by the State of California that they are confident they will have such data by 2004. We also call on States and cities to better determine the number and demographics of individuals with HIV. We require special efforts to reach those who are not receiving care and serve the needs of our historically underserved communities. We call for ending lingering disparities in care. And we require States, cities and the Federal government to develop new strategies to better coordinate HIV/AIDS treatment with prevention. The need for better coordination cuts across systems of care, Federal agencies, States, cities, providers and community organizations. Ten years ago, I described the CARE Act as providing ``a continuum of prevention services--counseling and testing, diagnostics for those who test positive, and therapeutics for those whose diagnostics indicate a medical intervention.'' Patients receiving care under the CARE Act today deserve seamless continuity between testing, counseling, treatments, support and prevention services. Just last week, the Institute of Medicine released a comprehensive report on our nation's HIV prevention efforts. They concluded that ``prevention services for HIV-infected people should be integrated into the standard of care at all primary care centers, sexually-transmitted disease clinics, drug treatment facilities, and mental health centers.'' This is precisely what we set out to accomplish in H.R. 4807, and this policy is reflected fully in this final consensus legislation. This legislation also strengthens the responsiveness of CARE Act programs to the public. Title I Planning Councils will include a greater number of independent individuals with HIV/AIDS. Planning Council meetings and records will be exposed to greater public ``sunshine.'' All Planning Council members will receive improved training. And States will make their planning more accessible to a broader range of public stakeholders. We have also focused CARE Act programs on the needs of vulnerable populations. Just yesterday, the Office of National AIDS Policy announced that half of the 40,000 new HIV infections every year occur among our teens and young adults. In this legislation, funds will be allocated to better reflect the proportions of women, children, infants and youth with HIV. I expect this will increase such funding for these populations in the future. We have also strengthened the Title IV program for medical care, social services, and access to research for low-income children, youth, women and families. States and cities must develop novel strategies to coordinate their HIV/AIDS services and substance abuse services. And the Secretary of Health and Human Services must develop a plan in consultation with the Attorney General for the treatment of prisoners with HIV/AIDS. This legislation greatly expands our national effort to eliminate the perinatal transmission of HIV/AIDS. The last ten years have seen a dramatic decline in such cases, due largely to the treatment of pregnant mothers with zidovudine. In an important compromise, we have increased an existing $10 million CARE Act grant program by $20 million, with a proportion of new funds set aside for States with either mandatory newborn testing or significant declines in perinatal transmission. I am confident these funds will be well spent on offering counseling and testing to all pregnant women, outreach to high-risk women and other innovative prevention efforts. Funding has also been redirected to cities and States with the greatest need of additional assistance. The Title I and Title II ``hold harmless'' provisions have been revised to ensure a manageable transition to funding allocations which better reflect the current distribution and epidemiology of the epidemic. This will be accomplished while minimizing potential disruptions in care for individuals with HIV/AIDS. Under Title II, States' base funds as well as their total funding will be held harmless to a small percentage of loss. Under Title I, a city's potential loss in its formula allocation is limited to a percentage of the amount allocated to the city in the base year preceding its need for the hold harmless. In its fifth, consecutive year of need for the hold harmless, a city would lose no more than 15 percent of its base year allocation. Such losses would not be compounded, as was contemplated in the original Senate bill. But if the Secretary determines that data on HIV prevalence will be used in Title I formula grants in 2005, no city may lose more than 2 percent of its 2004 formula allocation in 2005. Additionally, Title I supplemental grants and new AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP) supplemental grants will be directed to cities and States with ``severe need'' for such funding, based on more objective and quantitative criteria. And new Title II supplemental formula grants will be given to ``emerging communities'' with AIDS case counts which fall below the threshold for Title I eligibility. These are the principal reforms to the CARE Act. They will expand access, improve quality and enhance services for individuals with HIV/ AIDS. And I want to recognize the hard work of House staff, including Roland Foster, Paul Kim, Karen Nelson, Marc Wheat, John Ford, Eleanor Dehoney, Brent Delmonte, Katie Porter, Anne Esposito and House Legislative Counsel Pete Goodloe, in making this possible. Mr. Speaker, much more could be done and much more needs to be done. We must expand Medicaid to provide care to individuals with HIV who have not developed AIDS. We must lead the global search for an effective HIV vaccine and a cure to AIDS. And we must provide resources and our hard-earned expertise to help other countries combat the epidemic. For today, though, I am pleased we will fulfill the expectations of Jeanne White, the mother of Ryan White, and of so many Americans living with HIV and AIDS by reauthorizing the Ryan White CARE Act.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin).

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) for their efforts to focus attention on the important issue of privacy. I believe that H.R. 4049 is a well-intentioned bill. The authors' sincerity in their motivation to improve privacy protections is a real one. I strongly object, however, to the decision to bring up this bill as a suspension bill. Until today, we have had no opportunity to consider fundamental privacy legislation that matters to millions of Americans. And now that we have a bill, we are only provided with 20 minutes of debate time and no chance for amendments. And I think that is wrong. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) said that his bill could go forward and other legislation on the subject of privacy could be considered at the same time. Well, the reality is that other legislation on privacy is not being considered at all. For example, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) has introduced genetic nondiscrimination and privacy legislation that has broad support; yet there has not even been a hearing on it. The gentleman from California (Mr. Condit) introduced legislation with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), myself and many other colleagues to provide comprehensive medical privacy protections for American consumers. That bill, which is in the subcommittee of the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn), has not even been given a hearing. The gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) have introduced comprehensive financial privacy protections; yet there has not even been a hearing on their bills. Today, with consideration of H.R. 4049, the leadership is finally taking up a bill concerning privacy, but the leadership has brought the bill up under suspension of the rules. This procedure blocks the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit), the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), and others from bringing up measures to provide privacy protections for American consumers. We should not waste this opportunity to consider meaningful privacy protections. The Privacy Commission Act should be brought to the floor under regular order so that Members have an opportunity to discuss whether substantive privacy protections or other improvements should be added to the bill through amendment. One of the main issues that has been raised about privacy, about the privacy commission bill, is whether its practical effect would be to delay the enactment of privacy protections. People who advocate privacy protections have expressed concern about the potential for delay. For example, the Consumer Federation of America Consumers Union and U.S. PIRG have stated that ``the creation of a commission would delay efforts to put meaningful privacy protections on the book.'' People who oppose privacy protections have been happy that this bill could delay privacy initiatives. On April 17, 2000, there was an editorial in the National Underwriter magazine that urged insurance companies to support this measure, because the presence of such a commission will provide a strong argument for Congress and the State legislatures to wait for the results before enacting, as they put it, highly restrictive privacy legislation. Under the right circumstances, establishing a privacy commission could be a helpful step in addressing privacy concerns. If Congress concurrently took action on enacting privacy legislation or at least made a binding commitment to take such action, American consumers could be confident that they would complement, rather than delay, this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize this point and urge my colleagues to oppose this suspension. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out that if we are going to be serious about doing something on privacy legislation, we should have had hearings in the Horn subcommittee, that is how we organize a consensus, not wait for one to happen. We ought to have hearings. We ought to have had leadership to develop legislation. We have not had that leadership to develop legislation. Secondly, not every one of our amendments was adopted in committee. We wanted a deadline for action by the Commission and an opportunity for privacy protections to be put into place. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), a very important member of our committee.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, before yielding to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), who is one of the champions on privacy questions in this Congress, I want to point out that the Horn subcommittee held three hearings, two at our request. They were all on the issue of this commission. There was not a single hearing on the medical privacy issue or the Internet privacy, which is also the jurisdiction of that committee. I regret that, because it seems to me we could be much further down the road in directly enacting legislation if we had that leadership. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), who has raised the privacy issue in a number of different spheres and has been such an enormous champion in trying to get legislation, and shown such leadership in trying to get that legislation.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time each side has remaining.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, along the lines of the argument just made by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), I want to point out that a number of privacy experts, including individuals from the Electronic Privacy Information Center, Consumer Action, Privacy Times, the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, the Free Congress Foundation, Junk Busters and others, they said: ``We oppose this bill because it is unlikely to advance privacy protections in the United States. To the contrary, if adopted, it would likely retard the progress of legislation that would result in meaningful protections for Americans. ``Enacting this bill would give the appearance that Congress was finally doing something about protecting Americans' right to privacy when, in fact, it was not. Such a result would be unfair to the American people.'' I agree with the argument that the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and others have made, and I would urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to point out that the predecessor of the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) of the committee that has the jurisdiction over privacy legislation, the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit), worked for many years on the issue of medical privacy; and, as a result, the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit) introduced a bill that had conservatives to liberals in the House on his legislation. Rather than build on that legislation and move it forward, the Republican leadership let it languish. Rather than work to resolve the issues of financial privacy, the Republican leadership in the Congress has not brought that to the floor. What the Republican leadership in the Congress has suggested we do about privacy is set up another commission. And many of us fear that setting up another commission is an excuse not to move forward. That is why, when this commission legislation was brought before the committee, we wanted a mandatory deadline to force actual action to protect people's privacy, not simply to continually study it. So I regret we do not have legislation on the subject, and that is why I would urge that we do not agree to this bill on suspension. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my concerns over H.R. 3088, the Victims of Rape Health Protection Act of 2000. While I fully sympathize with the intent of this legislation, I am afraid that it lacks important safeguards with would allow for the full protection of victims' rights. I have no doubt that the absence of these crucial details can be attributed to the bill's hasty discharge from the committee of jurisdiction, and the complete absence of any deliberation by the Committee on Judiciary. It is important that we understand current law as it applies to the rights of victims of sexual assault. According to the National Victim Center, 44 states have laws for the mandatory testing of sexual offenders. Of these states, 16 require mandatory testing before conviction, 33 require testing after conviction, and six require testing both before and after testing. Under Federal law, HIV testing of convicted sexual offenders is a mandatory condition of States' receipt of certain prison grants. Under the Crime Control Act of 1994, Congress allowed victims of sexual assault to obtain a court order requiring the defendant to submit to testing. Under current law, such an order may be obtained provided that probable cause has been determined, the victim seeks testing of the defendant after appropriate counseling, and the court determines both that test would provide information necessary to the victim's health and that the defendant's alleged conduct created a risk of transmission. In contrast, this bill requires that States enact mandatory HIV testing laws where the alleged crime ``placed the victim at risk of becoming infected with HIV'' or if ``the victim requests that the defendant be so tested.'' For a bill that purports to protect the rights of victims of sexual offenses, I am troubled by its lack of important and fundamental considerations. First, under this bill, it is possible that testing of the defendant would occur and the results of that testing be widely distributed-- despite the express wishes of the victim. In other words, in cases of sexual assault with a resulting risk of HIV infection, this bill seeks to have States enact laws to compel testing--even if the victim did not request such testing. This is not just a theoretical possibility. Victims may justly be concerned about the disclosure of test results. Despite our best efforts, there remains a stigma associated with HIV/AIDS. According to a recent Department of Justice report, New Directions from the Field: Victims' Rights and Services for the 21st Century, ``Advocates still report problems with insurance companies that, upon learning of the victim's HIV test or results, raise health insurance premiums or cancel the victim's policy altogether.'' This is clearly unconscionable, yet could easily result from this bill. Second, we should be concerned with the converse situation, where only the victim's request will trigger testing of the defendant. Under this bill, testing must occur if a victim desires it, even in situations where one cannot reasonably believe the test is needed. I strongly support retaining the standard under current Federal law of having the court determine whether the test provides information necessary to the victim's health and whether the defendant's conduct may have created a risk of transmission. Third, this bill fails to truly account for the interests of the victim. There is no provision of counseling, referrals or services for the victim. If we are going to expend scarce resources on timely testing of the defendant, we must ensure that their victims have complete access to counseling, testing and to health services--services which should include immediate, aggressive treatment. Nor is there any question that victims of sexual offenses should be entitled to testing for other very serious sexually--transmitted diseases, not just HIV/ AIDS. As the Department of Justice's report states, ``Although testing the offender may be important to the victim, it should be emphasized that testing the offender does not replace focusing on the victim's medical and emotional needs.'' Indeed, many states require counseling for victims prior or in conjunction with the mandatory testing, as does current Federal law. But that would not be the case under this bill. Finally, in another counterproductive departure from current law, the bill needlessly requires distribution of HIV test results--which are highly sensitive health information--to a large number of parties, some of whom in some situations may not require or even desire the information. Again, in contrast, states like Wisconsin have been sensitive to these legitimate victim's concerns, specifying that test results shall not become part of a person's permanent medical records. I am troubled by these obvious deficiencies of H.R. 3088, and regret that neither the Committee on Judiciary nor the Members of this House were afforded an opportunity to correct them.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, as Members of Congress, we have a responsibility to exercise oversight over a wide range of issues. This is one of our most fundamental obligations, and it includes investigating potential problems, both in the executive branch and the private sector. Mr. Speaker, along with that responsibility comes extraordinary power. We have the power to require citizens to come before us and respond to detailed questions about their lives. We have the power to require citizens to provide us with their most sensitive personal information, including their bank records, telephone logs and diaries. And when we make allegations about the conduct of citizens, our statements are broadcast on television and radio and printed in newspapers all across the country. We thus have the power to permanently tarnish individuals' reputations. So it is essential that when we fulfill our responsibilities to investigate, we investigate responsibly and be accountable for what we do. When we make a serious charge about an individual's conduct, we should be certain of the accuracy of our accusation. If we later learn of information that refutes that charge, we ought to correct the record. And when we harm individuals by making charges that are wrong, we ought to apologize. Wen Ho Lee has been in the news a lot recently. Many Members of Congress have been justly critical of the irreparable damage that has been done to his reputation. No one should be subject to unfounded smears by government officials. But, unfortunately, over the past several years, a pattern has emerged in which Members of Congress have done just that. Members of Congress have repeatedly made sensational public allegations against individual American citizens. Many of these initial allegations have received widespread coverage in the media. Further investigation, however, often has shown that the allegations are unsupported by the facts. And when the facts eventually do emerge, the news media inevitably gives little attention to the truth, and the public record is rarely corrected. Let me give you an example: In June 1997, former Representative Gerald Solomon, the chairman of the House Rules Committee claimed he had ``evidence'' from a government source that John Huang, the former Commerce Department official and Democratic National Committee fund- raiser, had ``committed economic espionage and breached our national security.'' This allegation of espionage was very serious. It amounted to a claim of treason, the most serious accusation that can be brought against an American. It was reported on national television and in newspapers across the country. But it turns out that that allegation was based on nothing more than gossip at a reception. When the FBI interviewed Mr. Solomon about this allegation, he told the FBI that he was told by a Senate staffer at a Capitol Hill reception that the staffer ``received confirmation, that `a Department of Commerce employee had passed classified information to a foreign government.' '' According to the FBI interview notes, the Senate staffer did not say that the employee was John Huang, nor did he say that information went to China. Representative Solomon did not know who the staffer was. In a second interview with the FBI, Representative Solomon recalled that what the staffer said to him was, ``Congressman, you might like to know that you were right there was someone at Commerce giving out information.'' Again, in this interview, Representative Solomon told the FBI that he did not know the name of the staffer who made this comment. In fact, the only way Mr. Solomon could identify the staffer was to describe him as ``a male in his 30s or 40s, approximately 5 feet, 10 inches tall with brownish hair.'' Mr. Speaker, here is another example: In June 1999, Representative Dan Burton issued a press release accusing Defense Department officials, including Colonel Raymond A. Willson of attempting to tamper with the computer of a committee witness, Dr. Peter Leitner, of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, sometimes known as DTRA. Mr. Burton alleged, ``While Dr. Leitner was telling my committee about the retaliation he suffered for bringing his concerns to his superiors and Congress, his supervisor was trying to secretly access his computer. This smacks of mob tactics.'' He further commented, ``George Orwell couldn't have dreamed this up.'' But Colonel Willson did not tamper with Dr. Leitner's computer; both the committee and the Air Force Office of Special Investigations conducted investigations and found that Colonel Willson had done nothing improper. It turns out that the incident at issue was nothing more than a routine effort to obtain files in the witness' computer that were necessary to complete an already overdue project. I regret to say that I am unaware of any public apology by Mr. Burton or Mr. Solomon for making these sensational allegations about Colonel Willson or Mr. Huang. Now, it is true that Mr. Huang has admitted involvement in conduit campaign contributions between 1992 and 1994, but Members of Congress should be accountable for their allegations regardless of whether the individual targeted has committed other wrongdoings. There have been many others who have been the target of unsubstantiated claims by Members of Congress, and who have yet to receive a public apology. Many of these allegations have focused on individuals in the administration. I believe that this pattern reflects a significant abuse of the serious powers that have been entrusted to us. I asked my staff to compile a report on unsubstantiated sensational allegations that have been made over the past few years. This report describes 25 of the most widely publicized of such allegations, as well as the facts that have been uncovered regarding the allegations. Mr. Speaker, I will enter this report into the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. I would like to take this opportunity today to set the record straight about at least some of the many wild claims that have been made. One of these allegations involves a very sad incident in 1993, in which Deputy White House Counsel Vince Foster was found dead in a nearby park. In 1994 and 1995, Mr. Burton suggested numerous times on the floor of the House that Mr. Foster had been murdered and that his murder was related to the investigation into President and Hillary Clinton's involvement in the Whitewater land deal. Mr. Burton's allegations have been repeatedly repudiated. On August 10, 1993, the United States Park Police announced the following conclusions of its investigation: ``Our investigation has found no evidence of foul play. The information gathered from associates, relatives and friends provide us with enough evidence to conclude that Mr. Foster was anxious about his work and he was distressed to the degree that he took his own life.'' On June 30, 1994, Independent Counsel Robert Fiske issued his report stating that ``the overwhelming weight of the evidence compels the conclusion that Vincent Foster committed suicide.'' More recently, on October 10, 1997, Independent Counsel Ken Starr concluded ``the available evidence points clearly to suicide as the manner of death.'' No further statements have been made by Representative Burton who made the allegation of foul play or murder. Let us turn to another allegation. In June 1996, Representative Burton claimed that the White House had improperly obtained FBI files of prominent Republicans and that these files ``were going to be used for dirty political tricks in the future.'' Committee Republicans also released a report suggesting that the files were being used by the Clinton administration to compile a ``hit list'' or an ``enemies list.'' Just yesterday, a Member of the Republican House leadership again referred to this charge on a nationally syndicated radio program, but these allegations have been thoroughly investigated by the Office of the Independent Counsel and repudiated. The Independent Counsel had been charged with examining whether Anthony Marceca, a former White House detailee, senior White House officials, or Mrs. Clinton had engaged in illegal conduct relating to these files. According to the report of the Independent Counsel Robert Ray in March 2000, ``neither Anthony Marceca nor any senior White House official or First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton engaged in criminal conduct to obtain through fraudulent means derogatory information about former White House staff.'' The Independent Counsel also concluded that ``Mr. Marceca's alleged criminal conduct did not reflect a conspiracy within the White House,'' and stated that Mr. Marceca was truthful when he testified that ``no senior White House official, or Mrs. Clinton, was involved in requesting FBI background reports for improper partisan advantage.'' The next allegation I am going to describe has occupied the House Committee on Government Reform for the past 4 years. Beginning in 1996, Representative Burton and other Republican leaders suggested that there was a conspiracy between the Chinese Government and the Clinton administration to violate Federal campaign finance laws and improperly influence the outcome of the 1996 Presidential election. In a February 1997 interview on national television, Mr. Burton stated if the White House or anybody connected with the White House was selling or giving information to the Chinese in exchange for political contributions, then we have to look into it, because that is a felony, and you're selling this country's security, economic security or whatever to a Communist power. Then on the House floor in June 1997, Representative Burton alleged a ``massive'' Chinese conspiracy. He said we are investigating a possible massive scheme of funneling millions of dollars of foreign money into the U.S. electoral system. We are investigating allegations that the Chinese Government at the highest levels decided to infiltrate our political system. Although the House Committee on Government Reform to date has spent 4 years and over $8 million investigating these allegations, no evidence was provided to the committee to substantiate the claim that the administration was ``selling or giving information to the Chinese in exchange for political contributions,'' and no evidence was provided to the committee that the Chinese Government carried out a ``massive scheme'' to influence the election of President Clinton. In August 1997, several Republican leaders called for an independent counsel to investigate allegations that Former Secretary Hazel O'Leary had in effect ``shaken down'' Democratic donor Johnny Chung by requiring him to make a donation to the charity Africare as a precondition to a meeting with her. For example, on national television, Republican National Committee Chairman Jim Nicholson stated, ``We need independent investigation made of people like Hazel O'Leary.'' But it turns out there was no such misconduct by Secretary O'Leary. A Department of Justice investigation found ``no evidence that Mrs. O'Leary had anything to do with the solicitation of the charitable donation.'' In fact, it turned out that Secretary O'Leary's first contact with Mr. Chung occurred after Mr. Chung had made his contribution, making the allegation factually impossible. Another allegation. On national television in September 1997, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) suggested that the Clinton administration was engaging in an abuse of power by using the Internal Revenue Service, the IRS, to retaliate against the President's political enemies. The Washington Times also quoted the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) as stating, ``One case might be a coincidence. Two cases might be a coincidence. But what are the chances of this entire litany of people, all of whom have an adversarial relationship with the President, being audited?'' That was his quote. These remarks by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) concerned allegations that the IRS was auditing conservative groups and individuals for political purposes. According to these allegations, several nonprofit tax-exempt organizations that supported positions different from those of the Clinton administration were being audited while other organizations favoring policies of the Clinton administration were not. The Joint Committee on Taxation conducted a 3-year bipartisan investigation of these allegations. In March, 2000, the committee reported that it had found no evidence of politically motived IRS audits. Specifically, the bipartisan report found there was ``no credible evidence that tax-exempt organizations were selected for examination, or that the IRS altered the manner in which examinations of tax-exempt organizations were conducted, based on the views espoused by the organizations or individuals related to the organization.'' Further, the report found ``no credible evidence of intervention by Clinton administration officials (including Treasury Department and White House officials) in the selection of (or the failure to select) tax-exempt organizations for examination.'' Another allegation that was made that was not substantiated and, when the facts came out, were not supported by those facts. Another example. In October of 1997, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) held a hearing in the Committee on Government Reform in which he said he would produce evidence of ``blatantly illegal activity by a senior national party official'' in the Democratic National Committee. The star witness at that hearing, David Wang, alleged that the then DNC official John Huang had solicited a conduit contribution from him in person in Los Angeles on August 16, 1996. But it was not John Huang who had solicited Mr. Wang. Credit card records, affidavits, and other evidence conclusively demonstrated that Mr. Huang had been in New York, not Los Angeles, on the day in question. Democratic fund-raiser Charlie Trie subsequently appeared before the committee and acknowledged that it had been he and an individual named Antonio Pan, not Mr. Huang, who had solicited the conduit contribution. Members of the committee have repeatedly asked that the committee officially correct the record on this matter because of this false charge against Mr. Huang, but the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) has refused to do so. Another example. In October 1997, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) also appeared on national television and suggested that the White House had deliberately altered videotapes of Presidential fund- raising events. On CBS's ``Face the Nation'', he said, ``We think maybe some of those tapes may have been cut off intentionally, they've been, you know, altered in some way.'' He also said that he might hire lip readers to examine the tapes to figure out what was being said on the tapes. Well, investigations by the House Committee on Government Reform and the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, however, including review by a technical expert hired by the Senate committee, produced no evidence of any tampering with the tapes. My colleagues might remember some of these examples because they all were prominently mentioned in the press at the time the allegations were made. In November 1997, Republican leaders drew on unsubstantiated reports by conservative radio talk shows and publications to accuse the Clinton administration of selling burial plots in Arlington National Cemetery for campaign contributions. Republican Party Chairman Jim Nicholson accused the administration of a despicable political scheme, and several Republican leaders, including the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), called for investigations. Former Representative Gerald Solomon stated ``this latest outrage is one more slap in the face of every American who ever wore the uniform of their country, who seem to be special objects of contempt in this administration.'' The General Accounting Office then conducted an independent review of the allegations that waivers to the burial plot eligibility requirements were granted in exchange for political contributions. In January 1998, GAO stated, ``We found no evidence in the records we reviewed to support recent media reports that political contributions have played a role in waiver decisions.'' Further, the GAO said, and I am quoting again from them, ``Where the records show some involvement or interest in a particular case on the part of the President, Executive Branch officials, or Members of Congress or their staffs, the documents indicate only such factors as a desire to help a constituent or a conviction that the merits of the person being considered warranted a waiver.'' Another example. In January 1998, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) held 4 days of hearings in the Committee on Government Reform regarding whether campaign contributions influenced the actions of Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt or other Department of the Interior officials with respect to a decision to deny an Indian gambling application in Hudson, Wisconsin. During those hearings, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) alleged that the decision was a political payoff and that it stinks and smells. Well, on August 22, however, Independent Counsel Carol Elder Bruce released the report of her investigation into the Hudson casino decision. She found that the allegations of political payoff were unsubstantiated, concluding from her report, I now quote, ``A full review of the evidence . . . indicates that neither Babbitt nor any government official at Interior or the White House entered into any sort of specific and corrupt agreement to influence the outcome of the Hudson casino application in return for campaign contributions to the DNC.'' The next allegation is not only unsubstantiated, but it involved the inappropriate disclosure of very private information. The allegation concerns Webster Hubbell, who was Assistant Attorney General until March 1994. Prior to that, he was a partner with Hillary Clinton at the Rose Law Firm in Littlerock, Arkansas. In December 1994, Mr. Hubbell pled guilty to tax evasion and mail fraud and went to prison for 16 months. During his imprisonment, Mr. Hubbell's phone calls to his friends, family, and lawyers were routinely taped by prison authorities. Such taping of phone calls is standard procedure in Federal prisons. Well, the tapes of Mr. Hubbell's phone calls were turned over to the Committee on Government Reform. As the Justice Department advised the committee, the tapes were protected by the Privacy Act and were not supposed to be released publicly. Nevertheless, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) released the document in April of 1998 entitled the ``Hubbell Master Tape Log'', which contained what were purported to be excerpts from these tapes. It was subsequently revealed that many of these excerpts were in fact inaccurate or omitted exculpatory statements by Mr. Hubbell. For example, according to the transcripts of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), if Mr. Hubbell had filed a lawsuit against his former law firm, it would have ``opened up'' the First Lady to allegations, and for this reason Mr. Hubbell had decided to ``roll over'' in order to protect the First Lady. These transcripts included a quote of Mrs. Hubbell saying, ``you are opening Hillary up to all of this'', and Mr. Hubbell responding, ``I will not raise those allegations that might open it up to Hillary'', and ``So, I need to roll over one more time.'' These quotes were taken from a 2-hour conversation between the Hubbells. The ``Hubbell Master Tape Log'', however, omitted a later portion of the same conversation that exonerates the First Lady. This included the following remarks exchanged between Mr. Hubbell and his wife: Mr. Hubbell: ``Okay, Hillary's not, Hillary isn't, the only thing is people say why didn't she know what was going on. And I wish she had never paid any attention to what was going on in the firm. That's the gospel truth. She just had no idea what was going on. She didn't participate in any of this.'' Mrs. Hubbell: ``They wouldn't have let her if she tried.'' Mr. Hubbell: ``Of course not.'' The ``Hubbell Master Tape Log'' of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) also included a passage in which Mr. Hubbell allegedly said, ``The Riady is just not easy to do business with me while I'm here.'' Mr. Riady, by the way, was a well-known figure in these campaign contributions that had been under investigation. In fact, the actual tape states, ``The reality is it's just not easy to do business with me while I'm here.'' He misrepresented the word ``reality'' for ``Riady''. Another example, and I want it on the Record in hopes that maybe someone will find this Record maybe in the press and report the corrections for maybe nearly as large as the original sensational allegations. In April 1998, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) sought immunity from the Committee on Government Reform for four witnesses: Nancy Lee, Irene Wu, Larry Huang, and Kent La. He and other Republican leaders, including Speaker Newt Gingrich, alleged that these witnesses had important information about illegal contributions from the Chinese Government during the 1996 elections. Speaker Gingrich alleged that the four witnesses would provide information on ``a threat to the fabric of our political system.'' The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) alleged that the witnesses had ``direct knowledge about how the Chinese Government made illegal campaign contributions'' and stated that the decision regarding granting immunity ``is about determining whether American lives have been put at risk.'' That is his quote. But after the committee provided these witnesses with immunity, their testimony revealed that none had any knowledge whatsoever about alleged Chinese efforts to influence American elections. For example, Mr. Wong's primary responsibilities in working for Democratic donor Noral Lum were to register voters and serve as a volunteer cook. One Member even suggested that the President could have committed treason. In May 1998, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) made remarks on the House floor regarding allegations that the political contributions of the chief executive officer of Loral Corporation, Bernard Schwartz, had influenced the President's decision to authorize the transfer of certain technology to China. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) described this issue as a, ``Scandal that is unfolding that I think will dwarf every scandal that we have seen talked about on this floor in the past 6 years.'' And said further, ``This scandal involves potential treason.'' The Department of Justice examined the allegations relating to whether campaign contributions influenced export control decisions and found them to be unfounded. In August 1998, Lee Radek, chief of the department's public integrity section, wrote that ``there is not a scintilla of evidence or information that the President was corruptly influenced by Bernard Schwartz.'' Charles La Bella, then head of the department's campaign finance task force, agreed with Mr. Radek's assessment that ``this was a matter which likely did not merit any investigation.'' I have not heard that the gentleman from Pennsylvania has given any apologies. The House select committee investigated allegations relating to United States technology transfer to China and whether campaign contributions influenced export control decisions. In May 1999, the committee findings were made public. The committee's bipartisan findings also did not substantiate the suggestion of the gentleman from Pennsylvania of treason by the President. In recent years, some Members have even engaged in a practice of asking the Department of Justice to consider criminal charges against individuals who have provided testimony that is inconsistent with Members' theories, and I want to go into that, but I do want to point out that to make a statement that the President of the United States has committed treason, to make it on the floor of the House of Representatives, to have it in the press by people who are in our government, elected by their constituents, is a serious matter. And to find later that a charge like that was unsubstantiated, it has got to bother all of us. We have had a series of Members, when they found statements made that they did not think were what they wanted to hear, they have sent letters to the Justice Department and then they have asked the Justice Department to say that those statements and testimony that were inconsistent with their views ought to be prosecuted; they ought to be prosecuted as criminal matters. I will give some examples. In September 1998, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) sent a criminal referral to the Department of Justice alleging that White House Deputy Counsel Cheryl Mills provided false testimony to Congress and obstructed justice. He told The Washington Post that there was, ``very strong evidence,'' that Ms. Mills lied to Congress. But the claims of the gentleman from Indiana were based on a run-of-the-mill document dispute. Ms. Mills believed that two documents out of over 27,000 pages produced to the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight were not responsive to a request from the gentleman from Indiana, while the gentleman from Indiana believed that the two documents were responsive. Instead of viewing this disagreement as a difference in judgment, the gentleman from Indiana charged that Ms. Mills was obstructing justice and that she lied to the committee. The Justice Department investigated the allegations by the gentleman from Indiana and found them to be without merit. Over the past several years, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) has made similar referrals to the Department of Justice regarding three other individuals who testified before the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. Now, not all mistaken allegations are made with an intent to intimidate or cause harm. Not all are made with a knowing disregard of the facts. Sometimes such allegations simply reflect sloppy investigative work. But the allegations of Members of Congress are not just words. Publication of such allegations in the newspaper can cause an individual embarrassment in their community. Can anybody listening to me imagine an allegation being made about them, that they committed a crime; how they would feel; how their reputation might be tarnished. Defending against an allegation can cause individuals to wrack up thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees. Particularly in light of the powerful impact our words can have on the lives of individuals, when we learn that our allegations are not true, we ought to do everything we can to remedy the harm our mistakes have caused. I am saddened and disturbed at the pattern we have seen over recent years, where Members of Congress have failed to take responsibility for their sensational claims. Today, I have described just some examples of the many allegations that should be corrected. There are more in this report that I am entering into the Record, and there are additional unsubstantiated claims beyond those that are in this report. I have spoken today because I believe this record must be corrected. The American people have entrusted the House of Representatives with extraordinary powers. The institution as a whole suffers when its Members are not accountable for the exercise of these powers. The American public should be able to trust that when we conduct oversight, we will act responsibly and that we will not impugn the integrity of others with unsubstantiated attacks. The fact that they are in a different political party does not justify that. The fact they may disagree with some of our own political views does not justify making serious and unsubstantiated allegations to tarnish them. The least we can do, if we act so irresponsibly to make these kinds of allegations, is to put the facts about such allegations in the Congressional Record; and the facts, when they show the allegations were not true, should serve as the basis for Members to publicly announce their error. To accuse someone of treason, to accuse someone of perjury, to accuse someone of obstruction of justice, and then to find those charges were not true, not even to say you are sorry and to correct the record and apologize, the only thing I can say to those Members who have done that, after all that, have you no decency? The least we can do is to correct the facts, correct the allegations, to make apologies, even though we all know the truth never catches up with the lie. The headline of the front page, which is the allegation, never gets corrected by the page 25 story that says that the original allegation was not true. Mr. Speaker, the committee report I referred to earlier is submitted for the Record herewith: [Prepared for Rep. Henry A. Waxman, Minority Staff Report, Committee on Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives--September 2000] Unsubstantiated Allegations of Wrongdoing Involving the Clinton Administration Over the past eight years, Chairman Dan Burton of the House Government Reform Committee and other Republican leaders have repeatedly made sensational allegations of wrongdoing by the Clinton Administration. In pursuing such allegations, Chairman Burton alone has issued over 900 subpoenas; obtained over 2 million pages of documents; and interviewed, deposed, or called to testify over 350 witnesses. The estimated cost to the taxpayer of investigating these allegations has exceeded $23 million.\1\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Footnotes at end of article. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chairman Burton or other Republicans have suggested that Deputy White House Counsel Vince Foster was murdered as part of a coverup of the Whitewater land deal; that the White House intentionally maintained an ``enemies list'' of sensitive FBI files; that the IRS targeted the President's enemies for tax audits; that the White House may have been involved in ``selling or giving information to the Chinese in exchange for political contributions''; that the White House altered videotapes of White House coffees to conceal wrongdoing; that the Clinton Administration sold burial plots in Arlington National Cemetery; that prison tape recordings showed that former Associate Attorney General Webster Hubbell was paid off for his silence; and that the Attorney General intentionally misled Congress about Waco. This report is not intended to suggest that President Clinton or his Administration have always acted properly. There have obviously been instances of mistakes and misconduct that deserve investigation. But frequently the Republican approach--regardless of the facts--has been ``accuse first, investigate later.'' Further investigation then often shows the allegations to be unsubstantiated. In fact, FBI interviews showed that one widely publicized Republican allegation was based on nothing more than gossip at a congressional reception. This approach has done great harm to reputations. The unsubstantiated accusations have frequently received widespread attention. For example, Chairman Burton's allegation regarding White House videotape alteration received widespread media coverage. It was reported by numerous television news programs, including CBS Morning News,\2\ CBS This Morning,\3\ NBC News at Sunrise,\4\ NBC's Today,\5\ ABC World News Sunday,\6\ CNN Early Prime,\7\ CNN Morning News,\8\ CNN's Headline News,\9\ CNN's Early Edition,\10\ Fox's Morning News,\11\ and Fox News Now/Fox In Depth.\12\ In addition, newspapers across the country, including the Washington Post,\13\ the Las Vegas Review- Journal,\14\ the Houston Chronicle,\15\ the Commercial Appeal,\16\ and the Sun-Sentinel,\17\ published stores focusing on the allegation. Two months later, when Senator Fred Thompson announced that there was no evidence that the videotapes had been doctored, there was minimal press coverage of his statement.\18\ The discussion below examines the facts--and lack thereof-- underlying 25 of the most highly publicized allegations. Allegation: During 1994 and 1995, Chairman Burton suggested numerous times on the House floor that Deputy White House Counsel Vince Foster had been murdered and that his murder was related to the investigation into President and Hillary Clinton's involvement in the Whitewater land deal.\19\ The Facts: Chairman Burton's allegations have been repeatedly repudiated. On August 10, 1993, the United States Park Police announced the following conclusions of its investigation: ``Our investigation has found no evidence of foul play. The information gathered from associates, relatives and friends provide us with enough evidence to conclude that . . . Mr. Foster was anxious about his work and he was distressed to the degree that he took his own life.'' \20\ On June 30, 1994, Independent Counsel Robert Fiske issued his report stating that ``[t]he overwhelming weight of the evidence compels the conclusion . . . that Vincent Foster committed suicide.'' \21\ More recently, on October 10, 1997, Independent Counsel Ken Starr concluded: ``The available evidence points clearly to suicide as the manner of death.'' \22\ Allegation: In 1995 and 1996, Republicans alleged that the White House fired the employees of the White House travel office so that White House travel business would be given to Harry Thomason, a political supporter of President Clinton. The Chairman of the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, William F. Clinger, said he saw the First Lady's ``fingerprints'' on efforts to cover up and lie about the travel office firings.\23\ Discussing the travel office matter, Rep. Dan Burton said, ``The First Lady, according to the notes we have, has lied.'' \24\ The Facts: In June 2000, the Office of the Independent Counsel issued a press release announcing that its investigation into the Travel Office matter had concluded. Independent Counsel Robert Ray stated: ``This Office has now concluded its investigation into allegations relating to . . . Mrs. Clinton's statements and testimony concerning the Travel Office firings and has fully discharged [her] from criminal liability for matters within this Office's jurisdiction in the Travel Office matter.'' \25\ Allegation: In June 1996, Chairman Burton alleged that the White House had improperly obtained FBI files of prominent Republicans and that these files ``were going to be used for dirty political tricks in the future.'' \26\ Committee Republicans also released a report suggesting that the files were being used by the Clinton Administration to compile a ``hit list'' or an ``enemies list.'' \27\ The Facts: These allegations have been thoroughly investigated by the Office of the Independent Counsel and repudiated. The Independent Counsel had been charged with examining whether Anthony Marceca, a former White House detailee who had requested the FBI background files at issue, senior White House officials, or Mrs. Clinton had engaged in illegal conduct relating to these files. According to the report issued by Independent Counsel Ray in March 2000, ``neither Anthony Marceca nor any senior White House official, or First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, engaged in criminal conduct to obtain through fraudulent means derogatory information about former White House staff.'' The Independent Counsel also concluded that ``Mr. Marceca's alleged criminal conduct did not reflect a conspiracy within the White House,'' and stated Mr. Marceca was truthful when he testified that ``[n]o senior White House official, or Mrs. Clinton, was involved in requesting FBI background reports for improper partisan advantage.\28\'' Allegation: Beginning in 1996, Chairman Burton and other Republican leaders suggested that there was a conspiracy between the Chinese government and the Clinton Administration to violate federal campaign finance laws and improperly influence the outcome of the 1996 presidential election. In a February 1997 interview on national television, Chairman Burton stated: ``If the White House or anybody connected with the White House was selling or giving information to the Chinese in exchange for political contributions, then we have to look into it because that's a felony, and you're selling this country's security--economic security or whatever to a communist power.\29\'' Further, on the House floor in June 1997, Chairman Burton alleged a ``massive'' Chinese conspiracy: ``We are investigating a possible massive scheme . . . of funneling millions of dollars of foreign money into the U.S. electoral system. We are investigating allegations that the Chinese government at the highest levels decided to infiltrate our political system.\30\'' The Facts: The House Government Reform Committee to date has spent four years and over $8 million investigating these allegations. No evidence provided to the Committee substantiates the claim that the Administration was ``selling or giving information to the Chinese in exchange for political contributions.'' The FBI obtained some evidence that China had a plan to try to influence congressional elections.\31\ However, no evidence was provided to the Committee that the Chinese government carried out a ``massive scheme'' to influence the election of President Clinton. Allegation: In June 1997, Rep. Gerald Solomon, the Chairman of the House Rules Committee, claimed that he had ``evidence'' from a government source that John Huang, the former Commerce Department official and Democratic National Committee fundraiser, had ``committed economic espionage and breached our national security.'' This allegation was reported on national television and in many newspapers across the country.\32\ The Facts: In August 1997, and again in February 1998, Rep. Solomon was interviewed by the FBI to determine the basis of Rep. Solomon's allegations. During the first interview, Rep. Solomon told the FBI that he was told by a Senate staffer at a Capitol Hill reception that the staffer ``received confirmation that `a Department of Commerce employee had passed classified information to a foreign government.' '' According to the FBI notes on the Solomon interview, the Senate staffer did not say that the employee was John Huang, nor did he say that information went to China. Rep. Solomon did not know who the staffer was.\33\ In his second interview with the FBI, Rep. Solomon recalled that what the staffer said to him was: ``Congressman you might like to know that you were right there was someone at Commerce giving out information.'' Again in this interview, Rep. Solomon told the FBI that he did not know the name of the staffer who made this comment.\34\ Allegation: In August 1997, several Republican leaders called for an independent counsel to investigate allegations by Democratic donor Johnny Chung that former Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary had, in effect, ``shaken down'' Mr. Chung by requiring him to make a donation to the charity Africare as a precondition to a meeting with her. On national television, Republican National Committee Chairman Jim Nicholson stated, ``[W]e need independent investigation made of people like Hazel O'Leary.'' \35\ Rep. Gerald Solomon, the chairman of the House Rules Committee, criticized the Attorney General for being ``intransigent'' in refusing to appoint an independent counsel.\36\ The Facts: A Department of Justice investigation found ``no evidence that Mrs. O'Leary had anything to do with the solicitation of the charitable donation.'' \37\ In fact, it turned out that Secretary O'Leary's first contact with Mr. Chung occurred after Mr. Chung had made his contribution, making the allegation factually impossible.\38\ Allegation: In September 1997, Chairman Burton suggested on national television that the Clinton Administration was engaging in an ``abuse of power'' by using the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to retaliate against the President's political enemies.\39\ The Washington Times also quoted the Chairman as stating: ``One case might be a coincidence. Two cases might be a coincidence. But what are the chances of this entire litany of people--all of whom have an adversarial relationship with the President--being audited?'' \40\ The Facts: The Chairman's remarks related to allegations that the IRS was auditing conservative groups and individuals for political purposes. According to these allegations, several non-profit tax-exempt organizations that supported positions different from those of the Clinton Administration were being audited while other organizations favored by the Administration were not.\41\ The Joint Committee on Taxation conducted a three-year bipartisan investigation of these allegations. In March 2000, the Committee reported that it had found no evidence of politically motivated IRS audits.\42\ Specifically, the bipartisan report found there was ``no credible evidence that tax-exempt organizations were selected for examination, or that the IRS altered the manner in which examinations of tax- exempt organizations were conducted, based on the views espoused by the organizations or individuals related to the organization.'' Further, the report found ``no credible evidence of intervention by Clinton Administration officials (including Treasury Department and White House officials) in the selection of (or the failure to select) taxexempt organizations for examination.''\43\ Allegation: In October 1997, Chairman Burton held a hearing which he claimed would produce evidence of ``blatantly illegal activity by a senior national party official.''\44\ The star witness at that hearing, David Wang, alleged that then-DNC official John Huang had solicited a conduit contribution from him in person in Los Angeles on August 16, 1996.\45\ The Facts: It was Charlie Trie and his associate Antonio Pan, not John Huang, who solicited Mr. Wang. Unlike Mr. Huang. Mr. Trie and Mr. Pan were never ``senior officials'' at the DNC. Credit card records, affidavits, and other evidence conclusively demonstrated that Mr. Huang and been in New York, not Los Angeles, on the day in question.\46\ Mr. Huang later testified before the Committee and denied Mr. Wang's allegations. On March 1, 2000, Democratic fundraiser Charlie Trie appeared before the Committee and acknowledged that it had been he and Mr. Pan, not Mr. Huang, who had solicited the conduit contribution.\48\ Allegation: At an October 1997 hearing before the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, Chairman Burton publicly released a proffer from Democratic fundrasiers Gene and Nora Lum. Chairman Burton stated that the proffer indicated that ``the solicitation and utilization of foreign money and conduit payments did not begin after the Republicans won control of the Congress in 1994. Rather, it appears that the seeds of today's scandals may have been planted as early as 1991.''\49\ Specifically, the proffer suggested that President Clinton endorsed the candidacy of a foreign leader in exchange for campaign contributions.\50\ This allegation was reported in the Washington Post in an article entitled ``Story of a Foreign Donor's Deal With `92 Clinton Camp Outlined,'' and in other national media.\51\ The Facts: To investigate this allegation and other allegations concerning the Lums, Chairman Burton issued nearly 200 information requests that resulted in the receipt of over 40,000 pages of documents, 50 audiotapes, a videotape and numerous depositions. After this extensive investigation, however, the Chairman was never able to produce any evidence to support the dramatic allegation in the proffer. The proffer presented by Chairman Burton stated that, during the 1992 campaign, the Lums arranged a meeting with a Clinton/Gore official for an individual who had proposed to arrange a ``large donation in exchange for a letter signed by the Clinton campaign endorsing the candidacy of a man who is now the leader of an Asian nation.'' The proffer states that the official ``later provided a favorable letter over the name of Clinton,'' that a ``Clinton/Gore official signed then Governor Clinton's name to the letter,'' and that the individual who made the request for the letter then made a $50,000 contribution that reportedly came from ``a foreign person then residing in the United States.''\52\ In its investigation, the only letter the Committee obtained that concerned then-Governor Clinton's position on an election in Asia is an October 28, 1992, letter on Clinton/Gore letterhead that pertains to the presidential election in Korea. This document specifically states that then-Governor Clinton does not believe it is appropriate for U.S. public officials to endorse the candidacies in foreign elections. The letter states: ``Thank you for bringing to my attention the impact in Korea that my statement of September 17th has caused. I would appreciate your help in clarifying the situation in Korea through proper channels. My statement was a courtesy reply in response to an invitation to me to attend an event in honor of Chairman Kim Dae-Jung, and to extend to him my greetings. It was not meant to endorse or assist his candidacy in the upcoming presidential election in Korea. I do not believe that any United States government official should endorse a presidential candidate in another country.\53\'' Allegation: On October 19, 1997, Chairman Burton appeared on national television and suggested that the White House had deliberately altered videotapes of presidential fund-raising events. On CBS's Face the Nation, he said ``We thing ma-- maybe some of those tapes may have been cut off intentionally, they're been--been, you know, altered in some way.'' He also said that he might hire lip-readers to examine the tapes to figure out what was being said on the tapes.\54\ The Facts: Investigations by the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee and the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee produced no evidence of any tampering with the tapes. Shortly after Chairman Burton made his allegation regarding tape alteration, the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee hired a technical expert, Paul Ginsburg, to analyze the videotapes to determine whether they had been doctored. Mr. Ginsburg concluded that there was no evidence of tampering.\55\ In addition, Colonel Joseph Simmons, commander of the White House Communications Agency (WHCA), Colonel Alan Sullivan, head of the White House Military Office which overseas WHCA, and Steven Smith, chief of operations of WHCA, all testified under oath before the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee in October 1997 that they were unaware of any alteration of the videotapes.\56\ Allegation: In November 1997, Republican leaders drew on unsubstantiated reports by conservative radio talk shows and publications to accuse the Clinton Administration of selling burial plots in Arlington National Cemetery for campaign contributions.\57\ Republican Party Chairman Jim Nicholson accused the Administration of a ``despicable political scheme,'' and several Republican leaders, including Chairman Burton, called for investigations.\58\ Representative Gerald Solomon stated, ``[t]his latest outrage is one more slap in the face of every American who ever wore the uniform of their country, who seem to be special objects of contempt in this administration.'' \59\ The Facts: The Army has established restrictive eligibility requirements for burial at Arlington. Individuals who are eligible for Arlington National Cemetery burial sites include service members who died while on active duty, honorably discharged members of the armed forces who have been awarded certain high military distinctions, and surviving spouses of individuals already buried at Arlington, among others. The Secretary of the Army may grant waivers of these requirements.\60\ In January 1998, the General Accounting Office (GAO) concluded an independent investigation of the allegations that waivers were granted in exchange for political contributions. As part of this investigation, GAO analyzed the laws and regulations concerning burials at Arlington, conducted in-depth review of Department of Army case files regarding approved and denied waivers, and had discussions with officials responsible for waiver decisions.\61\ GAO's report stated: ``[W]e found no evidence in the records we reviewed to support recent media reports that political contributions have played a role in waiver decisions.'' Further, GAO stated: ``Where the records show some involvement or interest in a particular case on the part of the President, executive branch officials, or Members of Congress or their staffs, the documents indicate only such factors as a desire to help a constituent or a conviction that the merits of the person being considered warranted a waiver.'' \62\ Allegation: In January 1998, Chairman Burton held four days of hearings into whether campaign contributions influenced the actions of Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt or other Department of the Interior officials with respect to a decision to deny an Indian gambling application in Hudson, Wisconsin. During those hearings, Chairman Burton alleged that the decision was a ``political payoff'' and that it ``stinks'' and ``smells.'' \63\ The Facts: On August 22, 2000, Independent Counsel Carol Elder Bruce released the report of her investigation into the Hudson casino decision. She found that the allegations of political payoff were unsubstantiated, concluding: ``A full review of the evidence . . . indicates that neither Babbitt nor any government official at Interior or the White House entered into any sort of specific and corrupt agreement to influence the outcome of the Hudson casino application in return for campaign contributions to the

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong support for H.R. 4365, the Children's Health Act. I am very pleased this bill represents a bipartisan, consensus combination of the children's health legislation and a long overdue reauthorization of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration [SAMHSA]. This legislation contains many important provisions which will advance the treatment, cure and prevention of many childhood diseases and disorders. Among other benefits, they promise to make significant advances in the treatment and prevention of childhood asthma and of autoimmune diseases, like multiple sclerosis, juvenile diabetes and lupus, as well as in education and outreach regarding Tourette Syndrome. And children participating in clinical research will be afforded stronger protections under Federal law. Title V of this bill consists of H.R. 2840, the Children's Asthma Relief Act of 1999, introduced by Congressman Fred Upton and myself. Title XIX is based on H.R. 2573, the NIH Office of Autoimmune Diseases Act of 1999, which was authored by Congresswoman Connie Morella and myself. Title XXIII consists of an amendment, ``Children and Tourette Syndrome Awareness,'' authored by myself. Title XXVII includes enhanced protections for children participating in clinical research, based on H.R. 4605, the Human Research Subjects Protection Act introduced by Congresswoman Diana DeGette, Congressman John Mica and myself. Equally important, this legislation authorizes programs and grants administered by SAMHSA which are essential to the health of many Americans. The reauthorization of this agency's statutory authority is long overdue and comes at an important juncture in our efforts to improve our health care services NIH Initiative on Autoimmune Diseases I am pleased that H.R. 4365 establishes a new initiative at NIH to ``expand, intensify and corrdinate'' research and education on autoimmune diseases. Last year, Congresswoman Morella and I introduced the NIH Office of Autoimmune Diseases Act of 1999. This legislation created an office in the NIH Office of the Director to ensure that federal funding of autoimmune disease research is used optimally and that clinical treatments are developed as rapidly as possible. There are more than 80 autoimmune diseases--including multiple sclerosis, lupus, and rheumatoid arthritis--in which the body's immune system mistakenly attacks healthy tissues. These diseases affect more than 13.5 million Americans and are major causes of disability. Most striking of all, three-quarters of those afflicted with an autoimmune disease are women. Research on autoimmune diseases is spread through many institutes of the National Institutes of Health [NIH], just as treatments involve many clinical specialties. Increasingly, however, scientists are identifying the common risk factors and symptoms of autoimmune diseases. This is why greater coordination and additional resources are needed in our Nation's autoimmune research effort. Title XIX of H.R. 4365 adopts our office, transferring its activities and mission to an Autoimmune Diseases Coordinating Committee. Composed of NIH institute directors and permanently staffed with scientists and health professionals, the coordinating committee would be advised by a public advisory council. Most significantly, the coordinating committee, in close consultation with the advisory council, will develop a plan for research and education on autoimmune diseases. The plan will establish NIH priorities and the Director of NIH will ensure the plan is fully and appropriately funded. The strategic plan would create crucial new funding opportunities for autoimmune research, based on the professional and scientific judgements of researchers, patients and clinicians. Finally, the committee would report to Congress on implementation of the plan, including the actual amounts dedicated by NIH to autoimmune disease research. The committee will also prospectively identify areas and projects of great promise which Congress should support. I cannot overstate the importance of these activities. In conjunction with the strategic plan, these reports will provide an objective, scientifically sound roadmap to Congress and NIH to follow in the pursuit of new treatments and cures for autoimmune diseases. Asthma Services for Children Title V will benefit the more than five million American children who have asthma, one of the most significant and prevalent chronic diseases in America. Surgeon General David Satcher recently concluded that the United States is ``moving in the wrong direction, especially among minority children in the urban communities.'' That is why the Children's Asthma Relief Act provides new funding for pediatric asthma prevention and treatment programs, allowing states and local communities to target and improve the health of low-income children suffering from asthma. The act would also increase the enrollment of these children into Medicaid and state Children's Health Insurance Programs [CHIP], such as California's Healthy Families. I am particularly pleased that Title V includes mobile ``breathmobiles'' among the community-based programs eligible for funding. These school-based mobile clinics were developed by the Southern California chapter of the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, in conjunction with Los Angeles County, Los Angeles Unified School District and the University of Southern California. Finally, this title reflects the leadership and work of Senators Dick Durbin and Mike DeWine. It also has the strong support of leading child health and asthma organizations, including the American Lung Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs, the National Association of Children's Hospitals, the American Academy of Chest Physicians and the Children's Health Fund. Children and Tourette Syndrome Awareness Because I had intended to offer title III of this legislation as an amendment to the House legislation, I am very pleased it has been included. This title provides grants to develop and implement outreach programs, with a particular emphasis on children. These programs will target health providers, community groups and educators with enhanced information about the etiology, diagnosis and treatment of Tourette Syndrome [TS], a serious, often misunderstood and frequently misdiagnosed inherited neurological disorder. I am particularly pleased that this provision reflects the contributions and expertise of the Tourette Syndrome Association, a national organization dedicated to providing information about TS, its treatment and support services and current research to individuals with TS and their families. Research Subject Protections for Children I am also very pleased that provisions from Congresswoman DeGette's Human Research Subjects Protection Act have been included in title XXVII of this legislation. This bipartisan legislation represents the first comprehensive reforms of research protections in a quarter century. This provision benefitting children is a downpayment on the additional reforms which are urgently needed in informed consent and our national system of Institutional Review Boards [IRBs]. These protections are indispensable to medical research, and recent abuses and failures have understandably shaken public confidence. In the past, Congress has acted to protect research volunteers in the face of crisis or scandals like Tuskeegee, Willowbrook, and the government's cold war radiation experiments. But today, there is a clear consensus that we must strengthen and expand current protections. In doing so, we will restore the confidence of courageous people who are willing to put their health and welfare on the line to help find new cures and treatments. Without their trust, research simply cannot continue. Adoption Policy Finally, the adoption awareness provisions in title XII were the subject to great controversy and debate. The original language raised many serious objections concerning adoption policy as well as abortion policy. These objections were made by Members, including myself, and important public health organizations including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the National Association of Community Health Centers, and the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League. I recognize the sincerity of Chairman Tom Bliley's concern on the issue of adoption and the significant efforts he has made to achieve a compromise and to remove the more troubling provisions from this Title. samhsa reauthorization With respect to the reauthorization of SAMHSA, substance and alcohol abuse remain complex, troubling issues which elude simply or quick solutions. In light of surveys which indicate a recent increase in teenage drug use, it was particularly troubling to recently learn that nearly half of all parents are simply resigned to having their teenage children be exposed to illegal drugs. Unmet treatment needs continue to drive the annual $160 billion in societal costs from substance and alcohol abuse. Instead of receiving appropriate care, millions of Americans actively seeking treatment are being forced onto waiting lists. This is an unacceptable situation, especially as we have begun to receive conclusive data on the cost-effective health outcomes and dramatic savings produced by effective treatment. For these reasons, I want to commend Congresswoman Lois Capps on her authorship of the provisions on youth alcohol and fetal alcohol syndrome, Congressman Ted Strickland for his hard work on the mental health provisions, and Congresswoman DeGette on her provision strengthening protections against the use of seclusion and restraints. I am also particularly pleased that the grant programs targeting homeless individuals, the Grants for the Benefit of Homeless Individuals [GBHI] and the Projects for Assistance in Transition from Homelessness [PATH] have been reauthorized. charitable choice There is one provision which I regret has been included in the SAMHSA reauthorization. It relates to ``charitable choice,'' and wholly exempts faith-based organizations from the application of Federal employment and discrimination laws in the provision of services funded by SAMHSA. I am also concerned that ``pervasively sectarian'' organizations may receive such funding, weakening the clear constitutional separation of church and state. Finally, I question whether this provision weakens the standards for certifying facilities and personnel providing substance abuse or mental health services, and for measuring and assessing the delivery of such services by a faith- based organization. In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4365 and commend the House staff for their hard work and dedication on this important public health legislation, particularly Judith Benkendorf, Eleanor Dehoney, Anne Esposito, John Ford and Marc Wheat.