Henry Waxman

Mr. WAXMAN

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

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske), a respected physician Member of the House, one of the great leaders on public health issues. (Mr. GANSKE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentlewoman for offering this amendment, and commend her and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) for their leadership on this important issue. Chemical facilities are obvious targets for terrorist attack. Many of them are located in the hearts of our communities with large population centers. As a result, Congress, when we learned about the chemical facilities lacking sufficient security to address the threat of terrorist attack, asked the Attorney General to examine the vulnerability of these facilities and to report back to the Congress, but we have not had this study funded. This amendment would provide funding for the study, and I want to join with the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) in support of her amendment.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Will the gentleman also agree to address the radon report language in conference to prevent the rule from being delayed?

Mr. WAXMAN. I look forward to working with him in seeing that we can resolve this in a way that will be most productive for protecting public health.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in support of this amendment. The amendment will ensure that nothing we do here will undermine our ability to address the threat of global warming to the extent authorized by current law. In the last 2 years, we have had the Knollenberg amendment, which would prevent the administration from taking any action that is intended to implement the Kyoto protocol prior to ratification. What we fear now is that the Knollenberg amendment not be used to interfere with existing authorities and obligations under the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Clean Air Act, and the Constitution. The fear that I have is not that we are going to implement the Kyoto Treaty, but that the Knollenberg language will act as a gag rule on people who are trying to implement other existing laws. That is something that this Congress should not accept. I would hope that we act sensibly on global warming. The American people want us to find solutions to climate change. This amendment will help end the harassment of staffers who are trying to find the smartest way to protect the environment. I urge all Members to support this amendment. It does not implement the Kyoto Treaty; it simply allows EPA to act under existing authorities, whether a domestic law or a ratified treaty.

Mr. WAXMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

Mr. WAXMAN. The gentleman is correct. I would also note our history of working together to protect the environment. Radon in indoor air is the second leading cause of lung cancer and is a serious public health concern. Although radon in tap water can pose significant risk, the clear majority of the risk from radon on a national basis comes from radon seeping into homes from soil. For this reason and for the reasons the gentleman stated, the Safe Drinking Water Act was drafted to allow for the implementation of multimedia programs that would allow States to focus on radon more on indoor air than on drinking water. This would allow the States to address radon in the most cost-effective manner possible. If States implement these programs, then public water systems could comply with much less stringent standards while we achieve improved public health protection.

Mr. WAXMAN. I agree and believe the law could be strengthened in this manner. I want to commit to working together on an expedited basis to develop legislative language that would achieve these goals. I believe we do not need to delay the EPA regulations to achieve this goal and that delaying the regulations may be counterproductive. Will the gentleman agree to work on legislation with technical assistance from EPA?

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment and commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) and Representative Brown for their leadership on this important issue. Once again, we are confronted with a VA-HUD appropriations bill and report that contains damaging and mind-boggling antienvironmental riders. There are two contenders for this year's winner in the category of the most outrageous and ludicrous antienvironmental riders. The nominee is the language that actually makes it more difficult to clean up PCB, and it is competing against an equally nonsensical provision that would make it more difficult for EPA to keep arsenic out of drinking water. I really am quite mystified at the fact that we are in the middle of an election year; and 2 weeks ago, the Republicans bring to the House floor a tax break of $20 billion for 400 families. The next week they come in with a bill that cuts the funding for nursing home inspections. Then tomorrow we are going to have to fight whether we are going to continue a lawsuit against the tobacco industry. Now they want arsenic in our drinking water. What constituents are they appealing to?

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Scientists have been studying the effects of ozone on human health for many years, and we know there are serious adverse health effects associated with ozone air pollution. Ozone can trigger asthma attacks, reduce lung function, inflame and damage the lining of the lung. Prolonged exposure can lead to permanent damage in the way human lungs function. So we have a serious health issue associated with ozone. In 1997, EPA finalized new standards for ozone and fine particulate matters. In May of 1999, in a court case, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia remanded these standards back to EPA, and there is an appeal now going on to the Supreme Court. But an issue that is not under contention is whether ozone is harmful or whether EPA had the science to promulgate these standards. No one disagreed with that, and the court was explicit in underscoring EPA's decision that it was based on the science. What is at issue before the Supreme Court is an issue under the nondelegation doctrine. And the Supreme Court is going to be looking at that question. It is really quite an unprecedented matter of law. But in the meantime, areas have been designated under this new standard. This Linder-Collins amendment would stop the designation. Well, the designation ought to go forward. It does not require expenditure of money for costly monitoring. It does not require a loss of highway funding. It is not EPA disregarding the court case. This is important to go forward with the designations so the areas can be prepared to move once the Supreme Court has decided the issue. If this amendment were agreed to, it would set us years further along before the localities would be in line to meet the standards and would be prepared to do what is necessary to meet those standards. I would hope Members would oppose the Collins-Linder amendment.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's support and the willingness of the chairman of the subcommittee to work out this issue so that we have this amendment before us today. I just want to note for the record that it is not my understanding that this will require a reprogramming of funds. We believe that this amendment authorizes the use of those funds. That may have to be determined later. I do want to note we may have a disagreement on the consequences.

Mr. WAXMAN. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

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

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, last night we spent several hours debating the tobacco rider in this bill. As I explained last night, this rider defunds the VA lawsuit against the tobacco industry. I offered an amendment last night that would have allowed the VA to use funds from the VA medical care account to pay for the lawsuit. In opposing my amendment, I heard Member after Member say that they were not opposed to VA's tobacco litigation, rather they were just opposed to the source of funding. My amendment today addresses this point. It lets VA fund the litigation from its general operating expenses, such as salaries and travel, not the medical care account. Let me just quickly review the situation. In 1998, Congress voted to stop cash payments to veterans suffering from tobacco-related illnesses. As part of the Transportation Equity Account, Congress decided these payments could be better used paying for highway projects than to support our veterans. This was a bitter blow to our veterans. To lessen the impact on veterans, Congress told the VA and the Department of Justice to sue the tobacco industry. We promised that we would support this litigation and that if any funds were recovered, we would devote them to paying for medical care for veterans. Now, we were very clear when Congress voted to take away the cash payments to veterans for tobacco-related illness. We promised veterans we would help them recover from the cigarette manufacturers the costs of treating tobacco-related illnesses. The administration did what we asked them to do in 1998. The VA and the Justice Department filed a suit to recover the medical expenses incurred by the Veterans Administration in treating tobacco-related illnesses. And under the legal provisions they are using, the Medical Care Recovery Act, all the money recovered will go back to the Veterans Administration, just as Congress urged. This amendment that I am now offering, I think, meets the objections that were raised last night. The funds will not be transferred out of the VA medical account, even as we tried to limit it last night from that VA medical account for legal and administrative expenses. Instead, it will come from the operational funds from the Veterans Administration as well. I know that the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee thought this was unnecessary, because he thought the Veterans Administration had the authority to do this, but we want to make it very clear that those funds will be available for this lawsuit; and I think we are addressing the main argument that I heard last night that our amendment was objectionable, because it took funding from medical care for veterans. I hope that this amendment will be acceptable to the majority, and I would hope that they would agree with us and allow us to pass this amendment and to permit the lawsuits to be funded that I think will have enormous benefits for the veterans and for the taxpayers of this country. On that basis, I ask your support for the amendment.

Mr. WAXMAN. I have another amendment on the same subject as yesterday, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to inquire if this is the appropriate time in the bill to offer that amendment.

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

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, my colleague, Mr. Berman, and I wish to pay tribute to a remarkable man and his equally remarkable newspaper. In July of this year, ``Panorama,'' The Russian-language newspaper which is the brainchild of Alexander Polovets, will celebrate its 20th anniversary, its 1,000th edition and the 65th birthday of its editor- in-chief, Alexander Polovets. In 1978 Alexander Polovets started to publish a weekly Russian- language insert in a local Anglo-Jewish newspaper. It met with instant popularity and in 1980 Alexander published the first issue of ``Panorama,'' an independent weekly publication. ``Panorama'' went on to become the largest independent Russian-language weekly outside of Russia and certainly one of the most influential voices in the Russian- speaking community. ``Panorama's'' goal is to provide a forum for original materials of authors, thinkers and public figures in the United States and abroad. Equally important, it serves the needs of the growing Russian-speaking community in the United States. ``Panorama'' offers a unique opportunity to share information about life in the United States, helping to acclimate recent immigrants and to offer a focal point for cooperation within the Russian community. ``Panorama'' has published the works of some of the best known contemporary authors and thinkers, organized and promoted U.S. concerts, and raised important social issues such as welfare reform, immigration, crime and housing. It has featured interviews with prominent national and international figures and most recently it was instrumental in making the 2000 Census campaign a success in the immigrant community. The publication is used as reference material by hundreds of universities, libraries and social agencies. Its subscribers are worldwide, as is its staff of reporters. It is no surprise that in 1999 Alexander Polovets was named one of the ``100 Most Influential Jews in Los Angeles'' by the authoritative ``Jewish Journal.'' ``Panorama'' is the resource for anyone wishing to reach the Russian-speaking community. We ask our colleagues to join us in congratulating Alexander Polovets and ``Panorama'' for enriching our community for twenty wonderful years. Happy 65th Birthday to Alexander and best wishes for continued success.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for continuing to yield to me, just to say one last thing, and that is that we tried to meet the objection that has been raised on the other side and we have been unable to do that. We need this amendment.

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

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, we are getting close, I think, to the end of this debate, and I just want to summarize where we are. We argued that we should not preclude the transfer of funds so that the litigation could go forward. The chairman of the subcommittee said he wants the litigation to go forward; he just does not want the funds out of this account. We took that to heart and drafted our amendment so it would not come out of the part of the account that goes to health care services. We tried to get an agreement that it comes out of other parts of the Department of Veterans Affairs, but the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations has told us why that will not work. So where we are is with this amendment, and this amendment would take the funds out of the litigation and administrative expense part of the Veterans Affairs health program, and allow the use of it to pay for litigation expenses for the tobacco companies. We think that will produce a great deal of money for the Veterans Administration's health care program. Not only do we think that, but the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, the Disabled American Veterans, and AMVETS agree with us. That is why they are supporting our amendment. I urge Members to support our amendment. If it is defeated, the rider will stand in this appropriations bill and the litigation may well be stopped in its tracks. So I hope that Members understand where we are and, if they do believe this litigation ought to go forward, that they will vote for Waxman, Evans, and others who have joined with us in this amendment.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I did not quite hear the last point the gentleman made. The gentleman is saying we do not need another amendment if we accept the idea that it is coming out of the Veterans Administration?

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I hear from the other side the argument that they would like to have it come from the Department of Veterans Affairs but not from this particular section. And the reason I did not offer it in any other way is because of the possibility of a point of order. But if we are willing to have this worked out, I could, by unanimous consent, if everyone would agree, to change the amendment to say, on page 9 line 3, after the word insert the following, the Department of Veterans Affairs may transfer funds from the general operating expenses of the Department for the purposes of supporting the tobacco litigation. Let me put that forward and see if that resolves the opposition. Because I have not heard people on the other side say they do not want to fund the litigation, although we think that they would pull the plug on the litigation if they have that rider that has come out of the Committee on Appropriations. But if this is a more acceptable route, maybe we could do that, as long as we are funding the litigation. So we would say, in effect, the Department of Veterans Affairs may transfer funds from the general operating expenses of the Department for the purposes of supporting the tobacco litigation.

Mr. WAXMAN. If the gentleman would yield further, it seems to me, if that is the point of the gentleman, there should not be any problem with having a unanimous consent understanding right here and now to put this in the bill. If the gentleman is saying we do not need it, I disagree with the gentleman. Because as I understand it, the Veterans Administration would then have to reprogram funds, and that would require legislation. But if the gentleman would permit, I will make a unanimous consent.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment along with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), the ranking member of the Committee on Veterans Affairs, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), who are the co-chairs of the House Caucus on Tobacco and Health, and the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow). It amends a rider in the bill that would have the effect of blocking the Justice Department's lawsuit against the tobacco companies. Tobacco use may be the single greatest threat to public health in the United States. It kills hundreds of thousands of Americans every year. It is a particular threat to children, who are bombarded by slick advertisements inducing them to smoke, and to veterans, who often become addicted to nicotine while in the service. With the magnitude of the health threat, Congress' record on tobacco has been absolutely abysmal. In 1998, I reached across party lines to reach an agreement with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), the chairman of the Committee on Commerce, on how to regulate tobacco. This was an historic agreement, because the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) and I had long been opposed to each other on tobacco issues. Our agreement addressed many of the most contentious tobacco issues, including FDA regulation, environmental tobacco smoke and reducing youth smoking. But the leadership did not even allow a vote on the floor on our bipartisan proposal. Since then, Congress has done very little to protect children and public health from tobacco. When the Supreme Court struck down the FDA regulation of tobacco earlier this year, the court invited Congress to act, calling tobacco use ``perhaps the single most significant threat to public health in the United States.'' But Congress has not even held a single day of hearings on FDA jurisdiction, and today we are considering legislation that would actually shield the tobacco companies from Federal liability. This most likely will be the only legislation which we will consider on the House floor dealing with tobacco. Mr. Chairman, tucked away in this bill is a rider that is worth hundreds of billions of dollars to the tobacco industry. This rider protects the tobacco industry at the expense of health care for our veterans and the well-being of our children. Last fall, the Justice Department filed the suit against the tobacco industry. The suit alleges that decades of deceit by the tobacco industry have caused Federal taxpayers to spend billions paying for tobacco-related illness. The suit seeks recovery of those funds, as well as injunctive relief, to stop the companies from marketing to children and engaging in other deceptive and illegal practices. This lawsuit is good for the American taxpayer, who spend over $25 billion a year to treat tobacco-related illnesses. Recovery of Medicare funds would be deposited into the Medicare Trust Fund, thus adding years to Medicare's solvency. This lawsuit is also good for veterans. Currently the VA spends over $1 billion a year treating tobacco-related illness. Under the Medical Care Recovery Act, any recovery of these funds would be returned to the VA health program. The VA stands to recover billions of health care dollars, dollars that could be used to provide critically needed health care to our veterans. The lawsuit is modeled on the successful litigation by the States attorneys general, but it will have no effect on their suit or their settlement. It will also have no effect on small retailers. The defendants in this case are all major cigarette manufacturers. Despite the merits of the suit, a rider in this bill prohibits the VA from transferring funds to the Justice Department for tobacco litigation, and effectively blocks VA from participating in the lawsuit. There is no question who is behind this rider. It is the tobacco industry. Philip Morris has been actively lobbying Congress. Last week I mailed a ``Dear Colleague'' letter that attached the talking points Philip Morris is using. You may even hear some of those talking points in the debate today. Philip Morris argues this amendment will use VA health care funds for the tobacco lawsuit. This is simply false. The amendment expressly states that only funds that can be used for the VA lawsuit are ``the funds for the administrative and legal expenses of the Department of Veterans Affairs for collecting and recovering amounts owed the United States,'' not funds intended for veterans' health care. Philip Morris also argues that the rider is not about tobacco. Of course this issue is about tobacco. Philip Morris's argument has as much credibility as their testimony that nicotine is not addictive. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.