Henry Waxman

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, today I wish to commemorate the 83rd Anniversary of the Armenian genocide. On April 24, 1915, more than two hundred Armenian religious, political, and intellectual leaders were arrested and killed. From 1915 to 1923, 1\1/2\ million people lost their lives in the slaughter. Another half million lost their homes and property, and watched as the symbols of their religion and culture were destroyed. Regrettably, the world's inaction in the face of these atrocities sent a message that human rights violations would be tolerated. Hitler and other leaders saw nothing to deter them from waging genocide campaigns against other groups. Today we are still fighting the same kind of hatred in Eastern Europe, Southeast Asia, and other parts of the world. The Armenians who survived have maintained thriving cultures in the Middle East and built vibrant communities in the United States and around the world. We in Congress join them in honoring the memory of those who perished in the killings, and we use this opportunity to renew and strengthen our commitment to protect human rights around the world.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to make it very clear what has been happening in this investigation. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) has unlimited and unprecedented authority. He can unilaterally issue subpoenas, he can force people in for depositions, he can make people give up information, and then he can also disclose anything he wants to the press. His staff can leak it to the right press people to get the maximum story, and then get their spin on it. Democrats have never been in a position to stop their investigation, to hinder it in any way. They do not even ask us what to do, they just go ahead and do it. The only time we have any say on anything is when there is a question of immunity. Now, we hear the Speaker and the chairman of the committee coming to the House floor to complain that we are stopping their investigation. Well, the fact of the matter is that after over a year and a half, they have asked, through depositions and otherwise, for information about Democratic campaign abuses, and they have received over 1 million and a half pages regarding Democrats. They have gone after Democrats, at taxpayers' expense, doing research for opposition campaign purposes. This is what this is all about. It is a government-funded Republican campaign to smear Democrats. It is not a legitimate investigation about campaign finance abuses. These people, by the way, who are complaining today are the same ones who did not want us to have campaign finance reform even considered by the House, until they were forced by some of their own Members to bring it up. Madam Speaker, I want to point out that this Burton committee has been incompetent. They have blundered, these are not just my statements. I want to read the statements, a series of editorials from the New York Times. The New York Times called it a ``parody of a reputable investigation'', useless and unprofessional, and a ``rogue operation''. The Washington Post earlier last year already noted the ``investigation runs the risk of becoming its own cartoon, a joke, and a deserved embarrassment''. The Los Angeles Times called it a ``partisan sideshow''. The former chief counsel, the Republican chief counsel of the committee, quit last year, and he said, he was unable to conduct an investigation that complied with the standards of professional conduct that he had been accustomed to when he was in the U.S. Attorney's Office. He resigned because he said this whole investigation was incompetent and unprofessional. Madam Speaker, they have blundered, they have handled it in a partisan way, they have handled it incompetently, and what do they do? They come to the House floor and want to point fingers. They want to blame everybody but themselves. They want to point a finger at the administration, they want to point a finger at me, they want to point a finger at the Democrats, for their incompetence and their blunders. Oh, how I wish we really had a fair investigation. We pleaded with the Republicans, let us do a fair investigation. I even wrote an editorial in the New York Times, suggesting that if it helped, we ought to appoint some independent investigator to look at the Clinton administration issues, so we could then look at Democrats and Republicans in a fair way. We were told to forget it. They had the subpoena power, they had the millions of dollars of taxpayers' money to spend; they were going to do what they want to do, and that is what they have been doing for the last year and a half. It has been a series of embarrassments for them, and now, to get out of that, they are saying that we should go along and help them with immunity. They can send this investigation to another committee. They can go to the Committee on House Oversight chaired by the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) where they have stacked it so they have two- thirds of the vote, and they can vote immunity, and then Chairman Thomas can do the investigation. Fine. If that is what the Republicans want to do, send it to another committee. It could not get any worse. It could not get any worse if they had somebody else trying to do this investigation. The chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), is just not the person for the job. We do not put somebody in to investigate about campaign finance abuses when he himself is being investigated on the issue of his possible campaign finance abuses.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Rabbi Chaim Seidler-Feller for his tremendous contributions as Director of Hillel Council at UCLA for more than two decades. Hillel provides meaningful service to UCLA students by offering them an opportunity to experience Jewish life and ritual away from home. Many students come to Hillel to continue to practice in the Jewish faith, while others are introduced to the traditions of the faith at Hillel. Rabbi Seidler-Feller has created and introduced many new and innovative programs at Hillel designed to embrace the diverse cross- section of the student population. For example, he has sponsored conferences and seminars that explore the unique relationship between African-American and Jewish students. In addition to his remarkable contributions to Hillel, Rabbi Seidler- Feller has been actively involved as a teacher and lecturer at UCLA, Hebrew Union College, and the University of Judaism. We owe Rabbi Seidler-Feller a debt of gratitude for his vision, his devotion, and his support of this vital UCLA institution. I am delighted to bring Rabbi Seidler-Feller's tireless and selfless work to the attention of my colleagues and ask you to join me in saluting him for his many important contributions.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the gentleman on the superb job he has just done laying out the problems that we are seeing in the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight under the leadership of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton). This committee has wide-ranging responsibility to conduct an investigation on an issue that is important to the American people. But the Republicans on that committee have delegated to Mr. Burton extraordinary powers. No chairman of any committee in the history of the House of Representatives has had the power to go out and issue subpoenas without asking anybody to approve it; not the minority, not even the majority members of his committee. And to date, Chairman Burton has issued 1,049 information requests in connection with the campaign finance investigation. Of these, by the way, 1,037 or 99 percent were issued to investigate allegations of Democratic fund-raising abuses, and he also had 532 out of 541 subpoenas, and 144 out of 146 depositions all targeting Democrats. Now, no one in this Congress or the country can believe that the only campaign finance abuses have been by Democrats. What is also so troubling to me is the statement that Congressman Burton just made back home in his district. He was quoted as saying about the President of the United States, if I could prove 10 percent of what I believe happened, he would be gone. This guy is a scum bag. That is why I am after him. This is the statement of the chairman involved in an investigation. It is clear that he has a vendetta. He is not in any semblance trying to conduct an inquiry that will be fair and bring out all the facts, wherever they may lead. He is out to get the President of the United States. His statements, it seems to me, are so outrageous, quite vial. If they were delivered on the House floor as a Member of Congress, his words could be taken down. It is inappropriate for Members of Congress to speak that way. It is inappropriate for any American to speak that way about the President of the United States. But you have reported in this special order one of the most troubling things that also concerns me, and that is the fact that Chairman Burton has taken tapes of private, intimate, personal conversations, that Webb Hubbell has had with his wife and personal friends, and made them public. These are tapes about very personal matters. They have nothing to do with anything that relates to the campaign finance question. For his staff to have sat there and eavesdropped over these conversations, and then to send them, as he did, to the American Spectator, one of the right-wing magazines in this country, and other publications, to humiliate the man, there is really know other purpose but to humiliate him. Now, I do not know whether Webb Hubbell has committed any other crimes than that which he admitted to, and it is appropriate for law enforcement to investigate it. It would be appropriate for our committee to investigate any wrongdoing on his part that relates to the jurisdiction of our committee. But to use the power to release these personal conversations as a weapon against him, is so offensive, it reminds me of that comment that has gone down so well in history, that Joe Welch said at the Armey-McCarthy hearings: After all, have you no decency? I wrote to the Attorney General and, by the way, she, under the law, could not have made these tapes public. Ken Starr could not have made these tapes public. And under the Rules of the House, even Chairman Burton is not permitted to make these tapes public. He has done it, in violation of the rules of our committee, and I believe that the members of the committee will have to deal with that matter, and maybe even the Members of this House will have to further deal with the question of the ethical propriety of the chairman's conduct. But when he was given these tapes by the Attorney General, he was specifically told that these personal matters were to be kept personal and confidential. I am so troubled by Chairman Burton's conduct, I think it is reprehensible. His statements are vial. They do not befit a chairman who is trying to take on such important responsibilities. A lot of people have not paid attention to the investigation of the Burton committee, the way they did with Senator Thompson's committee. They just cannot take it seriously. But the power that this man has to subpoena documents, to force people to come in and be deposed, to have to hire lawyers to be there with them, and to ask questions that have nothing to do with campaign finance investigations. We have had witnesses who have been brought in and asked questions about their drug use, and if they don't want to answer that question, because it is not the business of the committee looking at campaign finance questions to ask such personal matters, they can argue that it is not pertinent, but then the chairman would make a ruling that it is. They then have the choice of being in contempt of Congress and fighting it out in court, where they would probably win. But do you know what it means when an American citizen, who has never been accused of doing anything wrong, has to face the overwhelming intrusive power of the Congress of the United States, asking for their personal records, asking them the most personal questions? I can think of no greater invasion of personal liberties than what we have seen in this Burton investigation. I think the disclosure, so out of sync with the rules of these Hubbell tips, are only the tip of the iceberg. What they have done to other witnesses by way of harassment speaks so poorly of any committee of the Congress of the United States. I thank the gentleman for yielding me time and allowing me to join with him in expression of concern about the conduct we have seen.

Mr. WAXMAN. A committee hearing or deposition ought to be made public. We have insisted these depositions be made public, and some of them are still being held back from the public. But what we have in these that is so offensive about the process is that witnesses are being harassed to come in and testify, not one day, but sometimes two, three, four and five days. Just to answer any question they want to ask these witnesses. And that means that any witness that comes before a committee of Congress has to have an attorney. He just can't take a chance that he will do anything wrong. You need to have legal representation. For someone working in the Department of Commerce, for example, or Secretary Babbitt's committee, where they were looking at the question of whether there ought to be a dog track approved to be turned into a gambling casino in Hudson, Wisconsin, we had 3 days of hearings on this issue. A lot of people were deposed before those hearings. Their depositions were released, but they never testified. The people who worked as government civil servants were brought in to answer extensive questions. They had to hire a lawyer at their own expense, answer the questions. They did. But they were asked to give depositions after they had already testified in the Senate and given depositions in the Senate committee. So they were being harassed for no purpose, because the information was already available. This is a different issue, these subpoenas and depositions, than what happened with Web Hubbell, because what happened with Web Hubbell was a tape made without the intention of it ever being made public. Those who were involved in the conversations never dreamed that their private discussions would be made public. That is different from someone who comes in for a deposition. Imagine just having a conversation with your wife about the family, about very intimate kinds of things, being taped; and you may even know it is being taped, but you expect it is never going to be disclosed; but then having it disclosed, or pored over by people who are, in effect, eavesdropping on the most sensitive kinds of communications.

Mr. WAXMAN. Let me draw a distinction. If a committee of Congress asks a witness to come and testify at a hearing or to testify under oath in a deposition, that information should be made public. That is on the record.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, this committee spent $6 million. They ought to have something to show for it. We have had only six public hearings over a period of 13 days, as opposed to Senator Thompson, his investigation, where they held 33 days of hearings, and they issued a 1,100 page report at a cost of less than $3.5 million. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) it has been reported in the press is hoping to be on the committee that Speaker Gingrich will set up if there is a possible inquiry of impeachment of the President of the United States. How can we have someone on a committee to decide whether to impeach the President of the United States when a Member has already said such a vile accusation against the President, and indicated he is out to get the President of the United States? We have clear bias, a vendetta, no objectivity or fairness. He is not interested in the facts. He has already made up his mind. So I point that out. Let us stop spending money unless it is really for an investigation that will get to the facts, and not just be used recklessly for partisan purposes. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, the statement was made that in case after case the agencies have not gone along with the discretion the Congress required them to use before they imposed civil penalties. I do not see how the gentleman can make that statement. The law specifically requires each agency to file with the Congress whether they have employed this discretionary authority or not. The reports are due in the next couple of days. I do not think the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) has had any advance notice of it. He is making statements for which he has no backing, no authority. We ought to look at the reports from the administration on the exercise of SBREFA.

Mr. WAXMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I was just shocked by the comments of the last speaker, because he said that we want to extol the virtues of small business, and we all agree to that, but then described Federal agencies, government employees that are trying to enforce the laws as equivalent to the mob. He said they are out for protection money. Is that the way we view government? It just seems to me an opening, a window to the mentality that would present this kind of legislation to us. There are willful, intentional, reckless violations of the law that will not be in any way prosecuted under this legislation, because if it is a first-time offense, even if it were reckless and willful, then it would not be enforced. How does my colleague justify doing that sort of thing, even if it is a reckless, willful violation of filing the report that indicates there is a hazard that workers may be exposed to? How can he justify that?

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I think what we have before us today is a solution in search of a problem. If we listen to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh), he is raising concerns that we have a paperwork problem for small business. We all are concerned about the paperwork burden on small businesses, and that is why the Congress responded just 2 years ago by adopting the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act or what is called SBREFA. This was passed with strong bipartisan support. We all heralded it as a way to reduce that paperwork burden. It called on the agencies to use discretion and not to impose a fine if there was some inadvertence in filing the necessary paperwork that was required by law. We have seen other reforms by both Democratic and Republican Congresses, and we have seen this administration attempt to reinvent government so that it would be more efficient and fairer. But what we have in this bill before us today is not a reduction in the amount of paperwork that would be imposed on small businesses but an excuse for small businesses not to file the paperwork required of them. The administration witnesses from the Department of Justice and the Environmental Protection Agency and other areas of the Federal Government came in and said that what this would do would encourage some small businesses to intentionally refuse to file the paperwork required of them, and that could interfere with the war on drugs, hinder efforts to control illegal immigration, undermine food safety protections, hamper programs to protect children and pregnant mothers from lead poisoning, and undercut the controls on fraud against consumers and the United States. That seems to me a risk not worth taking if that will be the result of this legislation. The legislation says not that we use discretion to not impose a civil penalty. The legislation that the gentleman from Indiana is proposing says that under no circumstances will we ever impose a fine for failure to file the paperwork on the first offense. And that just says no matter what, we are not going to have a fine. Well, if one is laundering money and there is a requirement to report $10,000 transactions and an institution is involved in some skullduggery, they will decide that it will be in their interest not to file that information. They know they have a safe harbor, they can never be fined or anyone take offense at their failure to abide by that law. Now, there are times when health and safety can be affected, but we are not going to know whether health and safety will be affected unless the paperwork has been filed that might indicate that there is a drug for which there are side effects or there is lead in a house that is being sold. But the seller, small business seller, does not disclose that fact, as is required by the law, because they do not want to discourage the purchaser from going ahead and buying the property. They know that they can get away without making these disclosures because of this legislation. We are going to have before us an amendment by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) that I think is a far more reasonable approach. It will say, in effect, that we should not go and impose a fine on small businesses if their inadvertence to file the paperwork was technical or inadvertent. If it involved willful or criminal conduct, we are not going to excuse that paperwork requirement. Or if they threaten to cause harm to health and safety of the public, consumers, investors, workers, or pension programs or the environment, we are not going to waive it. But if there were not that kind of matter, but in fact a good-faith effort to comply and rectify the violations, then there is no reason to have a civil penalty imposed. There is going to be another amendment that we will have later today, and that is an amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh), and it is going to say that we will prohibit the States from enforcing their own regulatory requirements. Now, all the Members of Congress who have come to this floor and extolled State's rights certainly ought to be opposing that amendment which will tell the States we are going to take away their ability to enforce their own laws and Federal laws and make all States abide by a one-size-fits-all approach that we in Washington will impose upon them. Mr. Chairman, when we get into the amendment process, I would urge Members to support the Kucinich-Tierney amendment to make this bill worthwhile. If that amendment fails, then I want to point out that the administration is threatening a veto. In addition to that, the bill is opposed by the labor movement because they are worried about what it is going to do to workers, by environmentalists, by consumer advocates, by a wide range of groups that fear that this bill that sounds like it is doing something for small business is going to in fact do a great deal of harm to the American people.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, that chart that says ``current law'' it seems to me is quite misleading, because nowhere in that chart does the gentleman indicate that just 2 years ago the Congress passed, and we all voted for it and heralded it as a great improvement, the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. That law, which is called SBREFA, was passed with strong bipartisan support. It calls on the agencies to use discretion not to impose civil penalties where there are other circumstances that ought to be factored in. It seems to me that should be reflected in the reality of current law.

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

Mr. WAXMAN. That is a very good question. But the problem is that the agency might not know about someone's 401(k) fraud unless they see what disclosures were in the paperwork. They have to find out about something for which they are not being informed. The reason that certain forms are required to be filed is to give the agency the information to know whether that small business is complying with the law. If they do not file the form, they may not know that a small pharmaceutical company found out that there was a side effect that could do harm, or that a seller of property knew about a lead threat or did not disclose it, or that the employer knew that their employees may be harmed by some hazardous substance and did not disclose it to them or to the agency involved. The agency just would not know. That is the first reason. The second answer to your question is, not only would the agency not know, but let us say the agency did know. To require the agency to come in and then have to get injunctive relief and criminal actions and all of that just seems to me to put the agency in a position where they are going after the small business with a sledgehammer. The reason for these reports is not to just collect money. The reason is to know whether there is a problem. The Kucinich-Tierney amendment spells out very clearly that if there is a technical or inadvertent reason why that report was not filed, if it was in good faith, there were efforts to comply or rectify the violations and there was no previous lack of compliance history, that they would not be fined. But, on the other hand, if there was a willful or criminal involvement that in fact there was a threat to harm and safety to consumers, investors and others, and that there was not this good-faith effort on their behalf, and in fact they had a very murky record in terms of complying, in fact they had not complied in the past with other requirements or they got an economic benefit for the violation, those factors would be taken into consideration, and they ought to be taken into consideration. Unless this amendment is adopted, it could not even be looked at.

Mr. WAXMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. WAXMAN. The gentleman from Indiana is the author of this. I find it hard to justify. Now, the exception that he wrote into his bill is if there is an imminent and substantial threat to harm or safety; but that does not answer the problem because the agency would have to prove this eminent and substantial threat. It seems to me to make more sense, if we are trying to remove the threat on a small businessperson who acted in good faith and they are going to be fined, that we do not let the others off the hook who are acting recklessly and willfully. Could the gentleman explain why he would allow that to happen?

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, let us try to understand what is at issue. If small business did not do something that was technically required in terms of filing some paperwork, or if their failure to comply adequately was inadvertent, they acted in good faith, no one thinks that they ought to have a penalty imposed upon them. But on the other hand, if a small businessman or woman willfully and recklessly were involved in criminal conduct and in pursuance of that criminal conduct did not file the reports that would disclose that conduct, that small business person should not be let off the hook. And, no, I will not yield at this moment, but I hope the gentleman will listen to me because I think this bill is flawed, because the bill before us would allow such a small businessperson who willfully, recklessly and intentionally tried to take advantage of this law that said that they did not have to get penalized if they filed such a report. I do want to yield to the gentleman from Indiana because I find that hard to justify.

Mr. WAXMAN. Let me say, that is not adequate. The reason it is not adequate is because they are going to impose a worse scenario for small businesses if they expect the agency to come and get injunctions, if it is a drug company to shut them down. What is involved in getting this paperwork is to know if there are problems, and then try to clear them up, not give a safe harbor for those who willfully violate the law.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, that is not what the bill says. The bill says there will be a safe harbor, that there may not be, under any circumstance, the imposition of a money penalty for a first-time violation even if it were willful. I yield to the gentleman to explain why he would do that.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak more on this bill when we get into the general debate, but I did want to take this opportunity to clarify the record. The GPRA legislation, the underlying bill that we are considering today, did pass the House by a bipartisan majority. It was overwhelmingly approved. The gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) has made that statement. But he and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) have both told us that we cannot now apply the same standards to the Congress because, one, it is not within the jurisdiction, the House rules would prevent it, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. These are excuses. They are the kind of excuses that I am surprised to hear from the other side. Because one of the things the Republicans did, for which they deserve a great deal of credit, is when we organized the Congress in 1995, they said that the rules that are going to apply to everyone else should also apply to the Congress. It was a reform that was long overdue. We all supported it. I was even amazed why we had not thought of it earlier. But the fact of the matter is, it made sense. But now we are hearing excuses about why we cannot have the same rules that this legislation sets up for the executive branch apply to the Congress. There is no reason for it. The House rules do not prevent it. It is not unprecedented. Let me give my colleagues an example. Congress passed legislation dealing with unfunded mandates, requirements on other levels of government. We said, if the executive branch develops a proposal or regulation that is going to provide for an unfunded mandate, they are going to require special isolation of that issue so that it is clear that is what they are doing; and the same would apply to the Congress. Both the Congress and the executive branch were covered in that legislation, appropriately. Why should we say that they cannot pass unfunded mandates, but we can; or we should not give any special consideration to unfunded mandates on either the executive branch or the legislative branch? Let me give my colleagues a second example. Our very committee has a bill dealing with standards for child care. Very appropriate. In that legislation they talk about standards that would apply to child care that would be administered by the executive branch. But in that same bill, they require the same standards to apply to child care run by the legislative branch. It makes sense. Let us not hear excuses why in the rule we are not going to permit an amendment that would apply the same standards to the Congress that we are asking of the administration, and that is that we develop a reasonable plan. I will have more to say about this when we get into general debate, but I did not want anybody watching this debate to be fooled by all of these excuses.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I want to speak on this bill. In 1993, we adopted this law. It is called the Government Performance and Results Act. It was proposed by the administration, the Clinton administration, under the guidance of the Vice President, who was trying to figure out how to reform government, make it work more efficiently. It received bipartisan support in the Congress. The law asked each agency to set up a plan, and that is what each agency has done. The General Accounting Office reviewed the plans, and they said they are workable, they are adequate, they are sufficient for the purposes intended. The Office of Management and Budget reviewed the plans. They said that some plans in some agencies are better than others, but by and large, they are doing a pretty good job. So what do we have today? A bill to throw out all the plans that were done and require that they all be redone by October. Now, the best thing it seems to me, if we want plans to be workable, is to work with the agencies to be sure their plans make sense, to work in partnership. Instead, what we have is a bill that is a partisan bill. It is going to be supported by Republicans and opposed by Democrats and opposed by this administration because the only reason this bill is on the floor is to try to say that every agency in the Clinton administration has failed. Well, who fails them? The staff, the Republican staff of the Republican majority of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. If we want to deal with the problem of government inefficiency, we ought to adopt the amendment that is going to be offered by my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich). He is suggesting that we apply the same rules to the Congress that we apply to the executive branch agencies. That will be challenged, as we heard in the discussion on the rule, as something that is not germane or appropriate to this bill because it deals with the legislative branch. Our committee has dealt with executive and legislative branch at the same time. There is no reason it could not consider the same rules to apply to the Congress in this kind of setting. What we have is opposition from the Republicans who control the Congress. Nothing could be more hypocritical than our committee, the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, coming to the floor and accusing other government offices of wasting money. The House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight is the poster child for government waste. We burn money on that committee. And we ought to have the rules that apply to the executive branch apply to Congress because of the waste of this committee. No private business would run its organization and spend money the way the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight has handled it. For the past year, the House and the Senate conducted identical and redundant campaign finance investigations. Democrats asked the Republicans to coordinate these efforts. They refused, so we had the Senate hiring staff, the House hiring staff. They have an army of staff on our committee. We went out and our committee issued subpoenas. We issued subpoenas to the same people that had already been subpoenaed by the Senate committee. We deposed witnesses and we deposed the same witnesses that had already been deposed. We did it without any coordination. In just the House itself, we have two or three committees also doing the campaign finance investigation. So we are not only duplicating the efforts of what the Senate has done, but our committee is duplicating the work of other committees. These committees have hired staff. They have deposed the same people. When I say ``people,'' who are they deposing? They are often deposing government agencies. For example, the White House counsel's office is now under attack in a subcommittee somewhere, maybe it is an Appropriations subcommittee, because they are accused of hiring too many lawyers. This is an accusation from one of many House committees that is investigating them. And they keep on sending subpoenas over to them, requests for information from them. They have to hire more people just to respond to the duplicative efforts of both the House and the Senate and all the subcommittees in the House. The money is taxpayers' money. It is paying for the Government Reform and Oversight staff; it is paying for the Senate Government Reform staff. It is paying for the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities staff that is doing investigations. All these committees are having the taxpayers pay for staffs, and then we have to use taxpayer money for the White House counsel's office, the Department of Commerce, every government agency that has to respond to the out-of-control campaign finance investigation where there is no duplication or focus. The Committee on Government Reform and Oversight alone is going to spend $10 million on this investigation, and we are wasting a scandalous amount of that money. We sent people on foreign trips that produced, despite their expense, very little. We are wasting it on a gold-plated investigation where, as my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit), who is well known as a watchdog of government spending, said, we have a staff of 79 lawyers, investigators, support staff working on this investigation. We have spent over $5 million to date. We are going to end up spending $10 million. And what have we produced? Only four campaign finance hearings over nine days. Let us compare that to the Senate. They held 32 days of hearings, and they have already filed an 1,100 page report with a budget of only $3 million. So we are very, very wasteful in spending taxpayers' dollars. I think we ought to stop pointing fingers at the executive branch. Oh, the executive branch. They ought to redo all of their plans. We ought to throw them out and make them spend more taxpayers' money, redoing those plans, while at the same time the Republicans are going to urge that we now not allow the same rules to be applied to the Congress. It makes no sense. It is a blueprint for wastefulness, duplication and it is taxpayers' dollars that are being used. I am going to urge that, when we get to it, that the Members support the Kucinich amendment. I hope that that amendment is not ruled out on a technicality. Members want to invoke these technicalities so they do not face the substance of what is involved. The substance is that the rules that apply to the executive branch apply to Congress. We ought to coordinate our activities. We ought to develop a plan. And for the chairman of the committee earlier to have said to us that they have a plan makes no sense, if they do have one, when we see the amount of waste that has gone on in our committee. It is scandalous. It should not be one that should be sanctioned. We have so much money that could be saved. If we want to use money that could be saved for tax cuts or for other needed efforts, that is where we ought to put that money, not on wasteful, redundant efforts by the Congress of the United States. I urge a vote for the Kucinich amendment, if we can get a chance to vote on it, and to vote against this bill because the bill is only a partisan one. It is not worthy of the House to consider it, because we are not really trying to make the government more efficient. We are only trying to make political statements by the Republican majority.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, the City of Los Angeles has designated the week of March 1, 1998 as ``Childhood Cancer Awareness Week.'' In honor of this proclamation, I ask my colleagues to join me in calling attention to the tragedy of childhood cancer and in working to defeat this debilitating enemy of our children. Cancer is the leading cause of death in the United States today. Each year, approximately 10,000 American children are diagnosed with cancer. Moreover, it is the leading cause of death by disease among children in our country. While great strides are made each year in research, treatment, and prevention of childhood cancer, we must remain vigilant in our efforts to search for cures and more effective treatments. I ask my colleagues to reaffirm their dedication to eliminating childhood cancer and to take a moment to express their appreciation to the devoted individuals working in the fight against this dreaded disease.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, February 6, 1998 will mark the retirement from the House of Representatives of one of the most respected Members of Congress, our friend and colleague Ron Dellums. Ron was first elected to the House of Representatives in 1970, a tumultuous time in our nation's history when we were being pulled apart by the War in Vietnam. Since that time he has been a tireless and impassioned critic of war's human toll. He has never wavered in his belief that the strength of our nation rests in the care with which we invest in our people and their communities and not in the accumulation of weapons. As a champion of the Congressional Black Caucus' alternative budget, Ron expanded the terms of the debate on the federal budget to include the kitchen-table interests of the American people--jobs, access to health care, affordable housing, and education. Ron has made an immeasurable contribution to the debate on our national priorities and his departure will leave a large void for us to fill. We are fortunate to have his tremendous legacy to serve as a guiding example of principled and committed public service. In his work on some of the most contentious issues before Congress, Ron has been eloquent and gracious, always acting out of principle and never out of personal or political gain. His liberal values have never weakened and he has been one of Congress' most distinguished spokespersons for the powerless in our society. Ron has raised the level of discourse in every debate he has participated in. No Member has done more to preserve the decorum and dignity of the House and he retires with the respect and admiration of Members of both parties. I wish Ron all the best as he begins this new phase in his life.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Eli Broad and Survivors of the Shoah Visual History Foundation for their tremendous contributions to the nonprofit organization, Bet Tzedek ``House of Justice'' Legal Services of Los Angeles. Bet Tzedek Legal Services is one of the leading poverty law centers in the country. Thousands of indigent, elderly, and disabled individuals benefit each year from the free legal services provided at Bet Tzedek's headquarters in the Fairfax District of Los Angeles, the Valley Rights Project in North Hollywood, and the thirty-two senior centers throughout the Los Angeles area. Bet Tzedek is open to all who pass through its doors and even makes ``house calls'' to the ill and frail. Its services are vital and they are not otherwise readily available to those who need them. Eli Broad has been a constant believer in Bet Tzedek's mission to be a place of refuge and assistance to Los Angeles' most needy residents. As one of the most dedicated supporters of Bet Tzedek, his efforts have allowed this generous organization to continue to operate at full capacity while maintaining its promise of services at no cost to its clientele. We owe Eli Broad a debt of gratitude for his vision, his devotion, and his support of this most worthy cause. Another devoted supporter of Bet Tzedek is the Survivors of the Shoah Visual History Foundation. This Foundation effectively teaches racial, ethnic and cultural tolerance through sharing the videotaped accounts of the Holocaust from survivors all over the world. The Foundation has been an important and committed friend to Bet Tzedek over the years. I am delighted to bring Mr. Broad's and the Shoah Foundation's tireless and selfless work on behalf of Bet Tzedek Legal Services to the attention of my colleagues and ask you to join me in saluting them for their many important contributions.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to join today with my colleagues in tribute to one of the giants of the House of Representatives, John E. Moss. He retired from his career in this body in 1978. But the inspiration he gave to the members who learned at his side is with us still. I was privileged to begin my career in Congress as a member of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of what was then the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. John Moss chaired that Subcommittee. He taught us all what tough, fair, tenacious, and totally professional investigatory work could be. He used his power to make Government programs and bureaucracy do what they were supposed to do: carry out the laws and serve the public. And he did it whether the cause was popular or not, embarassing to the Administration or his own party or not, whether he had to stand alone or not. I particularly remember some of the early work he did around the issues of nursing home conditions, unnecessary surgery, and abuses by prepaid health plans. They were trailblazers. We all know of the commitment and achievements of John Moss to open up government information to ordinary citizens through the Freedom of Information Act. We know of his achievements in the fields of product safety and consumer protection. But perhaps not so widely known is the influence his example and integrity had on so many other Members and staff. Mike Lemov, who served as his Chief Counsel on Oversight, said recently in a tribute to his Chairman that John Moss invariably championed the underdog, and relished uphill fights. And that sums him up as well as any words could. He was in many ways, for so many of us, the conscience of the House. If it needed to be done for the little guy, he was ready to do it. If he needed to take on big business or big government, the Defense Department or the drug companies, he was there. And he did it with thorough, effective, untiring work. I consider myself lucky to have had the opportunity to serve with him. He has been gone from this House for many years, but the public that he championed continues to benefit because of his work and accomplishments. We would all be proud to leave such a legacy.