Henry Waxman

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Drug Competition Act of 2000. This legislation would correct a grossly anticompetitive abuse by branded and generic drug companies of the generic drug approval process. Only recently have we learned that such companies, which usually operate as fierce competitors to the benefit of American consumers, can strike collusive agreements to trade multimillion dollar payoffs by the brand company for delays in the introduction of lower cost, generic alternatives. These sweetheart deals have earned the scrutiny of the Federal Trade Commission and the Food and Drug Administration. The FTC recently undertook consent agreements and enforcement actions against several companies which have engaged in such deals. But more can be done to prevent them from recurring. I am very pleased to have collaborated with Senator Leahy of Vermont, the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, in drafting this legislation. The Drug Competition Act would simply require companies seeking to reach secret, anticompetitive agreements to disclose them to the FTC and FDA. Disclosure of these agreements would enable Federal authorities to ensure that existing antitrust and drug approval laws are enforced to the letter. In sum, American consumers can be protected from anticompetitive abuses by the application of a little ``sunshine.'' I am very pleased this bill is being introduced with bipartisan support, and I urge my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring the Drug Competition Act of 2000.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, Members of Congress are well acquainted with the General Accounting Office. It is Congress' and the Nation's primary watchdog agency responsible for providing credible, objective and nonpartisan reports and evaluations of the programs and management of the executive branch. The GAO has for years provided Congress with invaluable assistance, now it is asking us for assistance by providing GAO with needed human capital authorities, and we should meet this request. Mr. Speaker, from 1992 to 1997, GAO's budget was cut by one-third. In order to achieve these reductions, the GAO was forced to reduce its staff by almost 40 percent and close many field offices. Since then, it has had to impose hiring freezes, cut training and suspend incentive programs. During the same period, GAO has faced a problem common to much of the Federal Government, an aging workforce. By the end of fiscal year 2004, over one-third of the GAO's employees would be eligible for retirement. As a result of these pressures, GAO's workforce is out of shape. There are too many senior- and middle-level employees and too few at the lower levels. These imbalances have been well documented in a human capital profile completed by the Comptroller General. In addition, the types of skills, knowledge and performance needed by GAO have changed over time as the world has been radically altered by the information age technology. Major policy issues have also become increasingly complex, requiring greater technical skill and sophistication to support the needs of Congress. Mr. Speaker, all of these trends have led to a human capital profile at the General Accounting Office which does not currently operate in the most efficient or effective manner. More seriously, it puts the GAO at risk of being unable to meet the demands and needs of the Congress in the future. The legislation before us would provide GAO with authority to address these concerns. For example, the bill would authorize the Comptroller General to offer early retirement opportunities and separation pay to a limited number of qualified personnel each of the next 3 fiscal years. Under the legislation, the Comptroller could also establish senior- level positions to meet critical scientific or technical needs. Finally, the bill requires the Comptroller to report annually to the Congress on the effect of this legislation and to submit a 3-year assessment of the implementation and effectiveness of this act. These and other flexibilities in the bill will bring the GAO closer to the personnel policies of our legislative branch organizations such as the Committees of Congress and the Congressional Budget Office. However, this legislation should not be viewed as a precedent for changes in executive branch personnel policy. Mr. Speaker, we have an outstanding Comptroller General in Mr. Walker. He is putting all of his efforts into making the GAO the kind of agency that we will all be proud of. This legislation before us today is a result of an enormous amount of effort that he has put into giving us recommendations to make GAO a better organization. I think that we ought to join together in a bipartisan move today in supporting this legislation and making sure that the GAO will be there to serve the needs of the Congress and the American people. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Bilbray amendment. For decades the tobacco companies have acted more recklessly and caused more harm than any other industry in America. They lied to the American public. They manipulated nicotine in order to addict. And they deliberately targeted our children. Yet this Congress has failed to act. Earlier this year, when the Supreme Court ruled that the Congress has not given the Food and Drug Administration explicit authority to regulate tobacco, the Court recognized that tobacco use ``poses perhaps the single most significant threat to public health in the United States.'' The Court decision placed responsibility to deal with this crisis squarely in Congress' lap. But since that decision in March, this Congress has done nothing. The Republican leadership has not held a single hearing on the problem nor brought any tobacco reform legislation to the floor. In fact, the only tobacco legislation we considered was a rider to block the tobacco lawsuit and deny veterans their day in court. This Congress should pass meaningful tobacco legislation. We should grant the FDA explicit authority to regulate tobacco. We should pass performance standards to give the industry meaningful economic incentives to reduce the number of children that smoke. We should pass a national policy on environmental tobacco smoke and put in place a nationwide public education campaign. Together these measures will succeed in reducing the number of children who smoke and will save million of lives for generations to come. The amendment before us today may not do any harm--but there is little evidence it will do any significant good. Public health organizations oppose it. The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids says that this amendment will ``do little to end tobacco's grip on the children of D.C.'' The American Lung Association states that penalizing children ``may adversely effect existing programs that are proven to work.'' This Congress has abandoned any meaningful national effort to regulate tobacco and to reduce tobacco use among our children. Instead, it is now proposing to legislate questionable policy for just one city. The Mayor and the City Council of D.C. should be given the opportunity to decide what comprehensive tobacco control policies work best for the children of this city. Just this past May, the City Council held a public hearing on the Bilbray amendment and other measures to prohibit youth consumption of tobacco products. They expect to take up the issue when they meet again this fall. We should allow D.C. to continue with its process and decide what tobacco control policies work best for the city--just like thousands of other city councils in the rest of the country. In considering this amendment, don't delude yourself and believe that this approach will reduce tobacco use among our children. The reality is that we need to pass comprehensive tobacco control legislation. We bear the responsibility to protect our children and to hold the tobacco companies accountable for their actions.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, it is a great honor for me to represent the 29th Congressional District, which is a mecca of creative genius and one of the most celebrated districts in the country. Whether you are enjoying the dazzling beaches, the celebrated Walk of Fame, the shopping on Rodeo Drive, or the magnificent Santa Monica Mountains, the beauty and diversity of the 29th Congressional District captivate the imagination like no other place on earth. The 29th Congressional District is the world's entertainment capital. From the time the first movie studio was created in 1911, creative visionaries and artisans have flocked to this magical place. Today, thanks to the talent and energy of the thousands of people in the district, the entertainment production industry is the nation's largest exporter. International sales of widely popular American copyrighted works brings tens of billions of additional dollars to our economy each year. The vision and inventive genius are also on display in the myriad other businesses throughout the district, including high tech firms, e- businesses, unique retail businesses and restaurants, and entrepreneurial start-ups. Not surprisingly, this community contains some of the best informed, technologically savvy, culturally progressive, and politically active people in the country. Every year people travel from around the world to experience the magic of the 29th Congressional District, a singular place where people's biggest dreams can come true.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4986. While I believe that we must promote U.S. competitiveness in global markets, I strongly object to forcing American taxpayers to support the export of tobacco and tobacco addiction. The most recent IRS statistics reveal that tobacco companies have used the FSC for a tax break of more than $100 million a year. Under the new system unveiled in this bill, they will benefit even more. This is wrong. The dangers of nicotine are well known, and these dangers do not stop at our borders. Smoking causes more than 3.5 million deaths each year throughout the world. That number is expected to rise to 10 million people within 20 years, with 70 percent of all smoking-related deaths projected to occur in developing countries that are the newest targets of the tobacco industry. This Congress has done nothing to address the tobacco epidemic that rages both here and abroad. Tragically, this bill only helps big tobacco promote it. We could easily address this problem by allowing for consideration of the Doggett amendment to exempt manufacture of tobacco from the bill. Instead, the bill was added to the suspension calendar, which allows no amendments and very limited debate. Mr. Speaker, we have FSC exemption for national security. We have exemptions to protect certain domestic industries. It is long overdue to have an exemption for public health. The American taxpayers should not be a partner in the export of death and disease. We should not be enabling big tobacco to escape public health restrictions in our market by peddling cigarettes to children around the globe. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill because the procedure does not allow us to engage in a meaningful debate on this issue or to vote on the Doggett amendment.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the leadership of the House, the Republican leaders of the House for scheduling this bill. While it is 11:36 in Washington, it is only 8:36 in California. Mr. Speaker, I rise also to urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4807. As the original author of the Ryan White CARE Act and the coauthor of H.R. 4807, I am pleased that this consensus bill is before the House today. With more than 250 bipartisan cosponsors and being reported by voice vote from committee, H.R. 4807 should be acted on expeditiously by the House. Since we last authorized the CARE Act in 1996, there has been dramatic progress in treating AIDS, but there is still much more to be done. There are new treatments, but there still is no cure. There are fewer deaths, but no new HIV infections and dangerous complacency are on the rise, and the treatment gap grows wider every day for the poor and communities of color. This is why the CARE Act is so important. Its reauthorization is crucial to the lives and health of hundreds of thousands of Americans, and it is essential that we refine and expand the CARE Act to respond to the epidemic's growing impact on women and adolescents. H.R. 4807 preserves the structure of the original law and enhances its funding, but it also focuses on services for reaching individuals with HIV and AIDS who are not in care, eliminating disparities in services and access and helping historically underserved communities. The legislation also begins to shift Ryan White funding to the HIV infected population, not just individuals with AIDS. This is an important transition which will occur when reliable data on HIV prevalence is available, and it is an important transition because we need to find the people who are HIV infected, because with appropriate treatment perhaps many of them can be helped not to develop full-blown AIDS. The bill will also give priority to communities in severe need of supplemental funds. As HRSA Administrator Claude Fox testified, ``These efforts, building on the current CARE Act, will significantly improve access to important health services for low-income, underinsured, and uninsured persons with HIV.'' The bill also expands the perinatal HIV grant program to $30 million, with an increasing set aside for States with mandatory newborn testing laws. While I do not share the belief that this set aside is necessary, I am pleased that Dr. Fox confirmed that the program will greatly increase the funds available to help end the transmission of HIV to newborns. The bill also enhances public participation in CARE Act programs and prevention efforts at the Federal, State and local levels, and adopts many important provisions in from the Senate bill. I want to applaud the gentleman from Oklahoma (Dr. Coburn) for his cooperation on authoring this consensus bill, and acknowledge the contributions of the many community organizations to the legislation. I want to thank the staff for their hard work, Roland Foster, Paul Kim, Karen Nelson, Marc Wheat, John Ford, Brent Delmonte, and Pete Goodloe. Mr. Speaker, our friends and colleagues are right, this is an important bill, and I urge full support for it. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4807 and urge my colleagues to support the bill. As the original author of the Ryan White CARE Act and the co-author of H.R. 4807, I am pleased that this consensus legislation is before the House today. The bill has more than 250 bipartisan cosponsors and was reported by voice vote by the Commerce Committee. The Senate has already acted on its own bill, and H.R. 4807 should be acted on expeditiously by the House. background on the care act Mr. Speaker, until 1990, it was volunteers, cities and States who carried the burden of care in the AIDS epidemic--not the Federal government. Enacting the Ryan White CARE Act into law was our government's overdue response to the AIDS crisis, providing urgently needed care to tens of thousands of Americans living with AIDS. Since we last reauthorized the CARE Act in 1996, there has been dramatic progress in treating AIDS. Lives have been extended and hope has been renewed. Deaths from AIDS have declined in our country. But while progress has been made, progress must also be measured by the length of the road ahead. There are treatments, but there is still no cure. There are fewer deaths, but new HIV infections and a dangerous complacency are on the rise. The epidemic is reaching into every community and every State in America. The treatment gap is growing wider than ever for the poor and for communities of color. And worldwide, the epidemic has killed 18 million people, orphaned millions of children and devastated entire countries. This is why the CARE Act is so important. The CARE Act is the foundation of our country's response to the AIDS epidemic. Its reauthorization is crucial to the lives and health of hundreds of thousands of Americans. And as AIDS increasingly threatens women, adolescents and our communities of color, it is essential that we refine and expand the CARE Act to respond to these changes in the epidemic. what h.r. 4807 does Today, the CARE Act provides early intervention services to prevent infection and to forestall illness in those who are infected. It furnishes medicines and outpatient and home health services to those who are ill. And the Act gives direct assistance to States and to the cities hardest hit by the epidemic. H.R. 4807 preserves the structure of the CARE Act and enhances its funding. But it focuses services for the first time on--reaching individuals with HIV and AIDS who are not in care; eliminating disparities in services and access; and helping historically underserved communities. The legislation also begins to shift Ryan White funding and services towards the HIV-infected population, not just individuals with AIDS. This is an important transition, and will mean a more equitable and accurate allocation of funds in relation to the demographics of the epidemic. But it will only occur when the Secretary determines that adequate and reliable data on HIV prevalence is available from all States and cities. The bill also addresses disparities in care through the Title I supplemental funds and a newly created Title II supplemental. Communities and cities in ``severe need'' of additional resources will be given increased priority for these funds, so that all underserved areas--rural or urban--may better serve their patients. These and other provisions enhance the responsiveness of the CARE Act to the needs of ethnic and racial minorities, consistent with the intent of the Congressional Black Caucus Minority AIDS Initiative. And as HRSA Administrator Claude Fox testified two weeks ago, ``These efforts, building on the current CARE Act, will significantly improve access to important health services for low-income, underinsured, and uninsured persons with HIV.'' When the Title I formula was modified five years ago, a ``hold harmless'' was added to limit any Eligible Metropolitan Area's (EMA) losses over five years to 5 percent of its Title I formula allocation. Our intention was to provide some time to allow EMAs to prepare for changes in their services and reductions in their funding. While there is broad agreement that the best way to avoid the need for a hold harmless is to increase funding overall to Title I, the funding increases to date unfortunately have not been so great as to render the ``hold harmless'' unnecessary. Now that five years have already passed since the formula was changed, the ``hold harmless'' has been adjusted to ensure greater funding equity in the Title I formula. I am particularly pleased that the Administration has made clear that it is unlikely that any new EMA will make use of such a hold harmless for the next three to four years. H.R. 4807 also expands an existing grant program to end perinatal HIV transmission to $30 million, with an increasing set-aside for States with mandatory newborn testing laws. While I do not share the belief that this set-aside is necessary, I am pleased that all of the funds will be available for voluntary counseling, testing, treatment and outreach to pregnant mothers, as well as for implementing newborn testing programs. Dr. Fox confirmed two weeks ago that this program will greatly increase the funds available to help end the transmission of HIV to newborns. This bill enhances public participation in both Title I and Title II, with greater representation of persons living with HIV and AIDS. Title I Planning Council meetings and records are opened to public ``sunshine.'' And we call on States to engage in a more participatory public planning process. The legislation makes other important reforms. It calls for greater coordination of HIV care and prevention efforts at the Federal, State and local levels--something I have always strongly supported. Patients are entitled to a seamless continuum of HIV prevention and care services from outreach, counseling and testing through to diagnostics, treatment and care. Finally, H.R. 4807 also adopts many important provisions from the Senate's bill, particularly the authorization of early intervention services in Titles I and II, and the creation of new quality management programs for CARE Act services. conclusion I want to applaud Dr. Coburn for his personal commitment to fighting AIDS and his cooperation on the bill. I also want to acknowledge the contributions of the many community organizations that participated in developing this legislation. And I want to thank the staff for their diligence and hard work--Roland Foster, Paul Kim, Karen Nelson, Marc Wheat, John Ford, Brent Delmonte and Pete Goodloe. Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude by citing my friend and colleague the Minority Leader. Two weeks ago, Mr. Gephardt spoke on this floor about AIDS in Africa. He said-- There has never in the history of the world been a threat to life like this . . . This is the moral issue of our time. I pray that this House and all of our great Representatives will stand and deliver on this, the most important moral issue we will ever face. Mr. Speaker, our friend and colleague was right. His words hold true the world over. So I ask my colleagues to commit themselves anew to ending the epidemic. I ask them to support this legislation. And I ask them to dedicate this legislation to the memory of our friends, our family and our countrymen who have died of AIDS. Making in Order on Legislative Day of Today Consideration of H.R. 4920 Under Suspension of the Rules

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4924, the Truth in Regulating Act. H.R. 4924 is similar to S. 1198, which passed by unanimous consent in the Senate and which was introduced in the House by the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit). H.R. 4924 is a significant improvement over H.R. 4744, which narrowly passed in the Committee on Government Reform on a party line vote. It imposed costly obligations on the General Accounting Office and bogged down the rule-making process. I would like to commend the sponsors of this bill, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly), the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit), the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh), and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), as well as the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), for working with us in order to achieve this compromise. By working together, we can now see a 100 percent bipartisan bill on the floor and have legislation that will actually be enacted into law. This bill is sounder than the committee-passed bill. Unlike that bill, this one only requires the GAO to evaluate an agency's analysis of rules. It does not require the GAO to do its own cost-benefit or cost-effectiveness analysis on rules. In addition, unlike H.R. 4744, this bill does not require the GAO to evaluate a rule by the end of the comment period if this is not practicable. Therefore, if necessary, to ensure a high quality review, the GAO could use 180 days to complete its evaluation of a rule and finish after the time for commenting has expired. This bill is not a major piece of legislation, but in one way it is precedent setting. For the first time in at least 5 years, the Committee on Government Reform has developed a consensus on regulatory reform legislation. I hope any future regulatory reform initiatives are approached with this same bipartisan spirit, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment which seeks to prevent the administration from implementing its contractor responsibility proposal. I want to put this in the simplest terms. The administration has proposed that when awarding a Federal contract, we should ensure that the company who receives the contract has satisfactorily complied with federal laws, including environmental laws, labor laws, and consumer protection laws. This is a commonsense proposal. If a company is illegally polluting our communities, endangering consumers, violating workplace safety laws, and not paying taxes, we should not be awarding them federal contracts. Instead, we should award the contract to a law-abiding company. It is also important to understand that this is simply a refinement of current law. Since 1984, federal contractors have had to have a ``satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics'' under federal procurement law. The pending proposal states that in examining this record, a federal grant officer should consider whether the company has demonstrated ``satisfactory compliance with federal laws including tax laws, labor and employment laws, environmental laws, antitrust laws, and consumer protection laws.'' Now, maybe some business lobbyists think we should reward lawbreaking companies with federal contracts, but I believe the American people want their tax dollars to support upstanding companies that comply with the law. In the words of the Sierra Club, ``Companies that fail to comply with environmental laws do not deserve to be rewarded with taxpayer-funded contracts.'' Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to oppose this amendment.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the Fiscal Year 2001 Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill. I deeply believe that foreign assistance is a cornerstone of American foreign policy and diplomacy and I have serious concerns that passing a bill this underfunded would be determental to America's strategic interests around the world. At $2 billion below the President's request, this bill is irresponsible. The dramatic cuts to debt relief, HIV/AIDS funding, and the restrictions on international family planning programs, would imperil millions of women and children. The cuts to microcredit lending, International Development Assistance, and the U.S. Agency for International Development, would bleed dry projects that are a proven success for uplifting the poorest families in the world. The consequences of abandoning these programs are severe. Diseases know no borders. Overpopulation is a burden on the infrastructure of the entire world. Ignoring these issues is a threat to our own health and environment, and our national security. At the outset, all the funding requested to support the Middle East Peace Process was included in this bill. Aid for Israel and the Middle East has always been my highest foreign aid priority, but the fact that these funds had to be compromised for critical increases to provide funding for debt relief and HIV/AIDS demonstrates how cash strapped this bill truly is. I am confident that all of the Foreign Military Financing for Middle East countries will be restored in conference, but we must also focus on increasing our commitment to the stability of other regions as well. Assistance for the politically fragile states in the Former Soviet Republics, the Central Asian Republics, and the Balkans is drastically below the Administration's request. The bill slashes the Expanded Threat Reduction Initiative, which works to prevent the transfer of Russian nuclear technology to rogue states, for the second year in a row. Furthermore, the attack on debt relief translates into an assault on the Latin American and African countries that are struggling to implement drastic economic and democratic reforms. There are some who believe that we can vote for this bill now and threaten to vote against it later if it does not improve. I believe we cannot settle for anything less than a better bill. This is only the beginning of the process and we should not have to settle for less before we go to conference with the Senate. The Republican leadership has crafted an untenable bill and I hope that my no vote on this point will strengthen the Administration's hand so it can get adequate funding for these important priorities, in addition to full funding for Israel and our Middle East priorities.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment. As the only major power in the world and one that takes its moral responsibilities seriously, this is a small step, but one we must take. I also supported the Waters debt-relief amendment for the very same reason. I found it offensive that the manager of this bill would suggest that the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), or anyone else, was anti- Israel for supporting debt relief. I think that was factually incorrect, and this deficient foreign aid bill makes me think now it was designed in a way to try to drive wedges between people and divide us; and that should have no place on issues as serious as AIDS and debt relief. Mr. Chairman, I am going to vote for the Waters amendment, and I am going to vote for the Lee amendment; and I am very seriously thinking that this bill ought to be defeated.

Mr. WAXMAN

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

Mr. WAXMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to point out the existing law was proposed by President Bush and was enacted with broad bipartisan support. We have got to have the people who have the knowledge and expertise to be on these advisory committees. If the Burton amendment is agreed to, those people will not be serving, and that will be a disservice to the children of this country that want to be sure, for parents, that the vaccines have been reviewed by those who can give us the best information. The conflicts of interest that the gentleman from Indiana referred to, and I sat through those hearings as well, were quite remote, had nothing to do with the vaccine approval. In some cases they involved people who because of their knowledge and expertise in this area had worked for pharmaceutical companies because they were the best experts in the country to advise on these vaccines. I would hope that Members will oppose the Burton amendment and not disregard a law that is so important for the best experts in virology, biology, statistics, pediatrics, and other scientific disciplines to serve as volunteers in the public interest.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding me this time. The bill the Republican leadership in this House has insisted on bringing to the floor today is a sham. It purports to provide drugs for the Medicare population. It does not. It purports to give seniors peace of mind that their drug costs will be covered. It does not. It claims to cover the drugs they need, and it does not do that. Instead, it would allow insurance companies to establish restrictive formularies and use that as a barrier in the way of patients getting medically necessary drugs if those drugs are not on the formularies. It would not assure that Medicare beneficiaries could get their drugs from their neighborhood drugstore. It would not assure that coverage was available in every area of the country. Seniors in rural areas would be particularly likely to find no coverage is available to them. What does the Republican bill do if it does not spend money to give seniors a drug benefit? It gives money to America's insurance companies. It tries to bribe them into offering an insurance policy that covers just drugs. The companies say they cannot cover just drugs. It will not be affordable, and it will not be available. Evidently, our Republican colleagues still regret that we passed Medicare. If they had their way, they would design Medicare the way they have this drug plan: use taxpayer dollars to pay insurance companies, and then cross their fingers and hope the insurance companies will provide health care to America's seniors and disabled people. No guaranteed benefit, differing premiums all over the country, no guarantee of affordability or availability and no accountability. America's seniors would not have wanted that from Medicare, and they will not be fooled by a sham plan for drug coverage now. What we are seeing here is really about a difference between Democrats and Republicans on Medicare. Democrats know Medicare works. We do not want to throw it out. We want to make it better. We want to add to Medicare a real, defined, guaranteed prescription drug benefit. We want a benefit that's available wherever you live in this country, whatever your income, whether you're sick or not, whether you're in traditional Medicare or in managed care. Republicans want to go back to the days before Medicare and tell seniors to depend on private insurance companies. It they are so sure that's the right way to go, why are they so afraid to let us vote on the plan the Democrats and the President want? Why are they so afraid of adding a real benefit to Medicare for all our senior and disabled citizens?

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), one of the leaders of the House of Representatives.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder), another physician in the House of Representatives.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining and who has the right to close.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of our time. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) has made the point very clearly that this is not about other lawsuits, it is about the tobacco lawsuit alone. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) and the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) and others who, from a medical perspective, have told us how important it is to pursue recovery for health care services. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans) has pointed out that for the veterans, we made a promise to them, we should not betray them. We should keep that promise to reach out and get funds for veterans health care. This lawsuit against tobacco should be permitted to proceed. We should not defund it through a rider on an appropriations bill. Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to vote for this amendment. It is the right thing to do.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my good friend, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), who has been very involved in health issues and who before coming to the Congress was in the nursing profession.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to note the contribution that the gentlewoman from Connecticut has made as a leader on this issue in the Committee on Appropriations and commend her for her statement. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), who has been so involved in public health issues. (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), a Member who is noted for his interest in fiscal responsibility and has a unique perspective on the promise made to the veterans a couple of years ago in the transportation bill. (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the veterans organizations support our amendment, because they want that money to be brought back into veterans health care. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans) one of the great champions on behalf of veterans in this institution, and the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Veterans Affairs.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, support for continuing the tobacco lawsuit should not be a partisan issue, and this amendment has bipartisan support. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to one of the great bipartisan leaders in this House, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen).

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes. I am offering this amendment with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), the ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs; the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen); the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan); and the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow). This is the third time this week we have offered an amendment to an appropriations bill to allow the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Justice Department to continue their tobacco lawsuit. The first time we offered our amendment to the VA-HUD bill, we lost on a close vote of 197-207. The second time we offered the amendment, we reached an agreement with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), the subcommittee chairman, and prevailed on a voice vote. I thought that this issue had been resolved. I thought the House had determined that the veterans and America's taxpayers deserved their day in court. The Federal lawsuit would be decided by a judge and a jury in a court based on the merits of the case, not by Congress through legislative riders. Unfortunately, I was wrong. The bill before us today, the Commerce- State-Justice appropriations bill, would undo the agreement we reached on Tuesday. Once again, it contains a rider that would defund the Federal tobacco lawsuit. During the debate over the past few days, we have learned several things. First, we have learned that stopping the Federal lawsuit is unfair to veterans. In 1998, Congress made a promise to veterans when we took the funds that were directed at veterans for cigarette-related disabilities and used it for highways. Congress said, We'll go to the courts and get money from the tobacco companies. If we adopt the language in this bill without our amendment, we will be going back on this promise. This is simply wrong. That is why our amendment is strongly supported by the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, the Disabled American Veterans, and AMVETS. We have also learned that defunding the Federal lawsuit is unfair to America's seniors. Each year Medicare spends $20 billion treating tobacco-related illnesses. The Federal lawsuit could potentially recover these costs, extending the solvency of the Medicare trust fund for years. That is why our amendment is strongly supported by the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare and other seniors' organizations. In effect, we have a simple choice. We can stand with an industry that has lied to the American people for decades, or we can stand with our Nation's veterans and our senior citizens. I ask my colleagues to think about what we are going to do. We are about to take the unprecedented action of stopping the judicial process in the middle of a pending case. And we are about to take this action for an industry that is the least deserving industry in America, for an industry that has targeted our children, for an industry that manipulated nicotine to keep smokers addicted, for an industry that has deceived and lied to the public for decades. Our amendment is drawn very narrowly. It does not allow the Justice Department to seek funding from other agencies to sue the gun industry, the gambling industry, or any other industry. All our amendment says is that this new policy should not be applied retroactively to halt pending litigation that commenced in reliance on the current law. In effect, the amendment is nothing more than a savings clause that would allow the tobacco suit to continue. Our amendment raises exactly the same issue we debated on Monday and decided on Tuesday. Today, as we did on Tuesday, we should stand with our veterans and our seniors, not the tobacco companies. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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