Henry Waxman

Mr. WAXMAN

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

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, if we have no disagreement on the issue, then I would ask unanimous consent that the amendment be modified to provide that 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. Mr. Chairman, now of course nobody wants to use health care dollars that will be used for services for a lawsuit. That is why we wrote the amendment to say that health care services dollars cannot be used for the lawsuit. But there are provisions in that budget for litigation and administrative expenses. Now, we are told, well, that is still not good enough. If we had taken it out of the general operating budget for the Veterans Administration, that would have been okay. Well, we hear that now from the people in charge of the committee, but no one came forward with that idea earlier. So what we have is an amendment that will say let us take the money out of the administrative and litigation part of the VA health care budget and pursue what can be a return of a great deal of money to go into veterans health. That is why the veterans groups supports this. The Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Disabled American Veterans, the Paralyzed American Veterans, the AmVets organization support this. They certainly do not want to see any reduction in health care, and they would otherwise agree with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), chairman of the subcommittee, on that point, but they do not agree with him on this amendment.

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

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am frustrated by what I am hearing from the other side on this debate. The argument is put forward that we do not want to use funds in the health care area of the Veterans Administration's budget because we do not want to use funds that should go for health care.

Mr. WAXMAN. If the gentleman will yield further, Mr. Chairman, the section we are talking about is the veterans' health care section. In the veterans' health care section, there are funds for litigation expenses and administrative expenses. Our amendment to the rider says that they didn't transfer funds except from the administrative and litigation part of the VA health care funds. If we sought to transfer funds from somewhere else in the Veterans Administration, it is our understanding there would have to be a reprogramming of funds, which means legislation to allow that reprogramming of funds. If I had offered an amendment to say that somewhere else in the funds from the Department of Veterans Affairs funds could be transferred, as I understand it, a point of order would be permitted against that. So we sought to transfer funds from the veterans' health care. Another reason why we did that is the veterans' health care program is the area that will benefit from the litigation against the tobacco industry, which is the reason why the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Disabled American Veterans, the Paralyzed American Veterans, all are supporting this amendment, because they want the litigation to continue. The American Legion has indicated they want the litigation to continue as well. The only way it will continue is if we can get funds transferred from the affected agencies.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I just want to respond to the point that was just made. The bill out of the committee has the words ``None of the foregoing funds may be transferred to the Department of Justice for the purposes of supporting tobacco litigation.'' So without changing the bill, that rider would prevent transferring the funds from VA to the Department of Justice to pursue the lawsuit. Now, the Department of Justice insists that if it cannot get the funds transferred from the VA and DOD and the HHS and other affected agencies they will not be able to pursue this litigation, because we did not fund the Justice Department litigation itself. If we would have put money in the budget for the Justice Department litigation against the tobacco industry, they would not have to seek funds from the Veterans Administration.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I want to frame this issue so that everyone understands what is at stake. We have the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, the Disabled American Veterans, AMVets. They have all asked for an ``aye'' vote on this amendment. On the other side is the tobacco industry, and they would like this amendment defeated. Now, the reason the tobacco industry wants this amendment defeated is that they would like to stop the litigation against them by the Federal Government. It will be easy for them to succeed if they could have riders in appropriations bills that defund the lawsuit. And the Attorney General of the United States said, if this lawsuit is defunded by this rider in the VA-HUD bill and another rider in the Department of Defense bill and another rider that will be in the Commerce, State, Justice bill, then she will not be able to go forward with the litigation. Now, to give my colleagues some background, in 1998 there was a promise made to the veterans when, in this transportation bill, they sought to get some funds for transportation use; and the bill provided that those funds that otherwise would go to take care of veterans who were disabled because of tobacco smoking would no longer be available to them for that use; and in 1998, when that money was taken out of veterans' health care, there was an explicit understanding that the Federal Government would pursue a litigation against the tobacco industry to make up for those funds. Well, we are now at the point where they are looking to see whether we are going to keep that promise. In 1999, the Justice Department brought the lawsuit, and Congress could have provided a different way to fund it. We could have funded it. We could have provided a clear appropriation for the lawsuit. But Congress refused to do that. So the Justice Department went to the various agencies to seek a transfer of funds. They went to agencies that are affected. They did this under a law passed by this Congress in 1995, and they went to affected agencies and they went to the Department of Health and Human Services and said, you are going to be affected by this lawsuit, because if we can recover money from the tobacco industry for Medicare, that will allow us to fund Medicare; and, therefore, we want to have you help us through the department appropriation pursue the litigation. They also went to the Department of Veterans Affairs and asked for a transfer of funds. That is the issue before us right now, it is the Department of Veterans Affairs. The amendment says that the Department of Veterans Affairs can transfer money, but only from that area provided for litigation and administrative expenses, not out of the health care budget, not out of the money to be used for health care services. If we do not adopt this amendment to stop this rider in this bill and we do not strike the riders in the other bills, then the lawsuit is going to be dismissed because the Department of Justice, on behalf of the American taxpayers, will not be able to continue to sue the tobacco industry and hold them accountable for the harm that they have done to people for whom we have paid their health care services. If that happens, it will be the greatest betrayal of all to the veterans and to others. So I urge support for this amendment to strike the rider that was placed in the bill to prevent the funds from being used to pursue the litigation against the tobacco industry. Let us not betray the veterans. We have made so many promises to the veterans of the country. We have promised them greater health care services, and we have not funded all that we have promised them. If we could pursue this litigation, perhaps we could get the funds to keep the promises to the veterans. I urge support for the amendment.

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

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, we promised the veterans a couple of years ago when we took away money for their disability based on tobacco smoking and all of the illnesses that resulted from it, that we would pursue this litigation and get back into the veterans' program money that rightfully belongs in that program because of the deception add bad-doing, fraudulent actions of the tobacco companies. After years of deceit and deception, it is right to hold the tobacco companies accountable for their false promises, misrepresentations, suppression of knowledge about the health risks of tobacco. This rider would stop the litigation. The Attorney General, Janet Reno, today, in a press conference, announced that if this rider goes through, prohibiting the transfer of funds, she will not have the ability to pursue this litigation; she would have to drop the lawsuit. We are not, and I want to emphasize this, because there seems to be some misunderstanding even on the part of the chairman of the subcommittee about our amendment. We are not transferring money from veterans' health care, but only from the veterans' health care fund for litigation, for expenses and legal fees. What more appropriate use of those funds would there be than to go against the tobacco companies to recover money for the veterans' health program and to keep our promise to the veterans that we would get money to put into veterans' health to make up for that which we took away from them over the years, just 2 years ago and to make up for the deceptions that the American Government placed on veterans when we encouraged them to start smoking in the past, which caused so much of the death, disability, and illness for which we could now get recovery from the tobacco industry. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, we in the Congress are constantly debating what our priorities ought to be, and 2 weeks ago this House adopted legislation to eliminate the estate tax. And in doing that, we gave, in effect, $200 billion to around 400 families. That was our judgment in this House. It was not a judgment I agreed with, but it was, nevertheless, the judgment of this House. In this bill that is before us there is a rider that we will seek to strike, and that rider would prevent use of funds to pursue litigation against the tobacco industry. Well, some people think that if we get a judgment against the tobacco industry, that could bring in $300 billion to pay back the Federal Government for expenses due to the misconduct of that industry. Mr. Chairman, well, if that rider does not get taken out of this bill and that lawsuit is stopped, in the course of a couple of weeks we will have given $200 billion to 400 families by eliminating the estate tax, and we will refuse to bring in potentially $300 billion that can be used for veterans' health, Indian health services, prescription drug benefits for the elderly, so many things where we are always saying we do not have the money to fund it. The amendment that we are going to be offering with a number of our colleagues would strike that rider, and so there would be no misunderstanding about it. That amendment would provide that funds that would otherwise go into the account in the veterans' health program for management and legal expenses would be used for pursuing litigation against the tobacco industry which would bring many, many, many times over that amount back to the veterans' health program. Specifically, we do not use any funds out of the veterans' health program, but only funds allocated for legal expenses. This separate fund would be then allocated to pursue the lawsuit, and all of the veterans' groups want that lawsuit to be pursued. They know how important it is to get funds that are not enough to meet their needs into the veterans' health priorities. We have explicit support from the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the AMVETS, the Disabled War Veterans, the Paralyzed War Veterans for our amendment; and all of the groups want this lawsuit to go forward. Let me point out that if we strike this rider we not only have the support of the veterans' organizations, but it will have no effect at all on the Medicaid settlement with the States or on retailers in this country. The only ones who are being sued are the manufacturers of tobacco products who for decades have mislead the American people and the veterans into starting to smoke and continuing to smoke. They not only mislead about the dangers of cigarettes, they mislead them about the nicotine addiction; and they not only did that, they manipulated the nicotine levels to keep people smoking. I would hope that when we get into the opportunity for amendments, that Members on both sides of the aisle will join us in striking that rider that would prohibit use of funds to recover money that can be used for veterans' health care from the tobacco industry. It is only to the benefit of everyone that this amendment go forward, and we will hear more about it later.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

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

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

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record my letter to Senator Lott dated May 8, 2000.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, we are about to consider the defense appropriations bill. Buried in this bill is a seemingly innocuous provision that would have a profound effect. The provision would require the Defense Department to obtain prior approval from both defense authorizing and appropriating committees before transferring funds to the Justice Department for litigation. The motivation for this provision may be to allow the Congress to keep track of funds appropriated to the Defense Department, but the provision has a major unintended and adverse effect. It would effectively block the Defense Department's contribution to the Justice Department's suit against the tobacco industry. This suit is currently under active consideration in the courts. Cutting off funds would seriously cripple DOJ's efforts to hold the tobacco industry accountable and to recover the billions of dollars spent by the Government on smoking-related health care. The tobacco lawsuit is strongly supported by the Department of Defense. Smoking-related illnesses cost the Department nearly a billion dollars each year. If the Justice Department case is successful, it could result in a substantial financial benefit to DOD health care programs which stand to share in the recovery. I had considered offering a simple amendment. It would ensure that the restrictions on transfers would not apply to currently pending litigation. It would thus ensure that there is no unintended impact on the tobacco case. However, I do not intend to offer my amendment at this time. I understand that the underlying provision is part of the bill's report language, not its statutory language; and I believe that the provision can and, I am hopeful, will be fixed in conference so that it no longer has any impact on the tobacco litigation. However, other appropriations bills moving through the House, such as VA-HUD and Commerce-State-Justice contain statutory language that is explicitly designed to stop the tobacco lawsuit. This is simply wrong. Rather than supporting the administration's effort to protect the Federal taxpayers and public health, these bills are trying to defund the litigation. This is nothing less than a secret gift to the tobacco industry. As the other appropriations bills move through the process, I urge my colleagues to strip out special protections for big tobacco; but if these provisions remain, I intend to shine the spotlight on them and fight to eliminate them.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, it is with some reluctance that I support Permanent Normal Trade Relations for China. I believe in free trade and I believe this agreement will bring economic growth to the United States and China, but I am highly concerned about the skewed priorities of U.S. trade negotiations and the framework of the World Trade Organization. I voted against the NAFTA because I thought we could make Mexico negotiate a better deal with more safeguards for the environment and worker rights. I voted against the GATT, which created the World Trade Organization, because I disapproved of establishing a world trading system that ceded our sovereignty in a number of areas, and particularly our ability to uphold laws for public health and the environment. I would have voted against Fast Track, if it had come to the floor, because of my concern that U.S. trade negotiators were not permitted to put worker protection issues as well as environment matters on the agenda. But according to the WTO rules that Congress ratified, and I voted against, China will be able to become part of the WTO regardless of our vote today. All we can decide here is whether the U.S. will benefit from the terms of China's accession. Although the symbolic message of rejecting PNTR would be potent, the substantive impact could be harmful for our economic and national security interests. On the economic side, there are some who believe that we can get every benefit by virtue of the bilateral agreement signed in 1979. I think that interpretation is incorrect. To press that issue, we could end up in a destructive trade war and at the same time lose major economic opportunities to America's global competitors. In the national security arena, I fear that in rejecting PNTR we would treat China as an adversary and that it would in reaction to our vote certainly become one. Rejecting PNTR would embolden the hardline militarists and make China even less cooperative in arms control and regional affairs. On the other hand, supporting the entry of both China and Taiwan into the WTO is an unprecedented opportunity to work with both countries on equal footing within a major multilateral organization. Furthermore, I think our current mechanism of annual review is not working and as a threat is not credible. I have voted against extending Normal Trade Relations status to China every year to protest their denial of human rights to their own citizens, but the possibility of cutting off trade relations has become an empty threat. That is why I strongly support my colleague Sandy Levin's proposal to establish a Congressional-Executive Commission to provide a continuous examination of human rights in China. It will create a strong network for Congress to communicate with NGO activists in China and maintain a constant focus on local Chinese elections, grass-roots environmental activities, and the situation in Tibet. I hope that passing PNTR will also bring greater transparency to China, and promote the rule of law. The influx of American interest, telecommunications, and media companies will democratize the flow of information beyond government control and give us new tools to scrutinize China's record on human rights and religious freedom. Although I'm supporting this bill, I continue to have serious concerns. For one thing, I am very troubled that Chinese tariffs on cigarettes will fall from 65% to 25% over the next four years. Lung cancer and other smoking-related diseases are already the most common cause of death in China, accounting for more than 700,000 deaths annually. This tariff reduction could open the door for tobacco companies to launch their aggressive marketing tactics against a highly vulnerable population where less than 4% know the dangers of smoking. Smoking patterns could eventually cause more than 3 millions deaths a year in China, and smoking rates could sky-rocket among women and children. We have a responsibility to make sure we don't spread the tobacco public health crisis to China. I also believe that the existing need for WTO reform will become even more apparent once China is a WTO member. I think there is a good change that China will try to get out of living up to its obligations under this accord and that even WTO judgments against China will be difficult to enforce. I also suspect that China may make efforts to use the WTO rules to challenge our own laws as trade barriers, When that happens, and maybe before, we in this country will have to face the dangers that the WTO represents and why it must be reformed. The WTO's dispute settlement mechanism must be open to input by non- governmental entities that have an interest in the deliberation. The evaluating panels cannot be shrouded in secrecy if dispute settlement is going to evolve as a credible and effective tool to enforce transparency and compliance. The U.S. should be leading the change to make trade rules include standards for human rights, labor rights, and the environment. We must work for a world economy that lives up to our standards instead of sinking to lower ones. Perhaps most importantly, we must make U.S. companies the ambassadors of these values when they operate abroad. I hope the advantages and consequences that unfold from PNTR will hasten our attention to moving forward on this agenda. My support for PNTR was not an easy decision. The debate has convinced me that we must redouble our efforts to press for domestic change in China, a change in U.S. trade priorities and more progressive would trading norms. But it has also brought me to the realization that isolating China would not cause new problems without without solving old ones and bring about great dangers that we must work to prevent. Today's vote could determine the course of U.S.-China relations for the next century. On voting for PNTR, I hope we will help make our most dynamic industries lead the way as they expand into China and the rest of the world. I also hope that it will allow us to working to bring down national barriers and promote the well-being lf all our peoples.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, today I pay tribute to a dear friend, Yoshi Honkawa, who is retiring after a thirty-six year career as a health care advocate in Los Angeles County. Yoshi's name has become synonymous with health care policy and advocacy for the residents of Los Angeles County. Over the years he has been an indispensable resource to me, my office, and the many institutions he has worked with. His wisdom and insight will certainly be missed as he enters his much-deserved retirement. Yoshi began his impressive health care career in 1964 at the Los Angeles County-University of Southern California (LAC-USC) Medical Center. He served as the medical center's comptroller and assistant administrator for five years. His talent did not go unnoticed, and he was promoted to associate administrator in 1969. Later that year, Yoshi became affiliated with the Los Angeles County Department of Hospitals and served as director of fiscal and hospital program planning until 1972. He then joined the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services where he was the deputy director of finance and legislative services. In 1975, Yoshi became the director of finance at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, where he remained to serve in various capacities. He was the vice president for government and industry relations from 1978 through 1993. In 1994, he was promoted to the position of consultant for health care advocacy. Yoshi's contributions in the health care field have always gone far beyond his employment. First and foremost, he knows and counts as friends virtually every major player in the health care arena, both in California and in Washington, DC. He has access everywhere. Second, he has contributed his time and experience to serve as a mentor to many, many young people entering the health care field. Truly, his legacy continues through them. Finally, he has made it his special mission to increase the diversity of people making health care management their career, serving as a founding board member of the Institute for Diversity in Health Care Management, and serving tirelessly in many capacities in that organization. He has been a long-time advocate and friend for graduate medical education, both through his activities at Cedars-Sinai and his membership of the Government Relations Steering Committee at the Association of American Medical Colleges. At the national level, he was also an active member of the National Health Planning and Development Council. In addition, Yoshi has been actively involved in health care policy development and implementation for Los Angeles and California. He was a Commissioner on the California Health Policy and Data Advisory Commission for ten years from 1987 through 1997. While serving on the commission, he was instrumental in shaping California's health policy, and he has been appointed to countless other posts, sharing his experience and knowledge with pivotal commissions and committees. Yoshi's tremendous contributions have been recognized many times through the awards and honors he has received. He has been honored by the American Hospital Association, the USC Alumni Association, the California Healthcare Association, and the USC Health Services Administration Alumni Association, to name a few. The citizens of Los Angeles and our health care institutions owe Yoshi a great debt of gratitude, as do all of his friends and associates who have relied for so long on his guidance and help. We know that his retirement may be beginning, but his involvement and influence in the field of health care will continue. I ask my colleagues to join me today in wishing all the best to Yoshi and his wife May.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. I thank the gentleman very much for yielding time to me. I also am grateful for the kind words that he has said about me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4040, the Long Term Care Security Act, and I want to commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) for their work in producing a truly bipartisan bill. The need for long-term care affects us all. Those who need long-term care are our parents, our spouses, and inevitably ourselves. Many Americans have already dealt personally with a loved one in need of home or nursing home care. Many Americans have had the experience of trying to find services and to arrange for payment. Most people know that such care is hard to get and even harder to pay for. I support offering long-term care insurance as a benefit option to Federal employees. However, I also know that this is a product that can be misunderstood. When the Federal Government offers this option, it has a responsibility to ensure that Federal employees have the information necessary to make an informed choice. Mr. Speaker, I am especially pleased that a number of issues I raised were addressed in this legislation. I want to commend the gentleman from Florida for his willingness to work with us to ensure that these issues were addressed. The first issue of concern to me was that of spousal parity. I believe that spouses should be treated like Federal employees. The purpose of long-term care insurance is to protect the assets of the insured when they are incapacitated. If one spouse has long-term care insurance and the other does not, the couple's financial assets as a family unit are at risk. For this reason, I am pleased that this bill includes a provision on spousal parity. Second, I believe that long-term care insurance should be available to everyone who needs it. Underwriting standards for employees and their spouses should be as minimal as possible. If we weed out through underwriting everyone who is likely to need long-term care, we will have failed to help those who most need help. For this reason, it was important to me to learn from OPM that their goal is to offer insurance on a modified guaranteed issue basis which would allow any Federal employee who is not immediately eligible for benefits to purchase long- term care insurance. Their goal is also to apply these same standards to spouses if possible. My final concern, which was addressed in an amendment that I offered and was approved during the subcommittee markup, was to ensure that Federal employees are fully informed about the advantages and disadvantages of long-term care insurance. Long-term care insurance is a complicated product. For some it is a good way to save for the future but for others it can have serious drawbacks. Furthermore, the benefits of policies vary considerably in terms of duration of coverage, per diem allowances and other features such as inflation protection. Without adequate inflation protection, a long-term care policyholder may find that the benefits have simply eroded. Consumers do need to be aware of the consequences of dropping their policies. Many consumer protections are options, not part of a basic package. I am pleased this legislation requires that OPM provide employees with information on all these important aspects so they can make an informed decision. Long-term care insurance is a relatively new product and it has a limited track record. If the Federal Government begins offering long- term care insurance, I believe it has a special responsibility to set high standards for informing consumers. Again I want to compliment the chairman of the Subcommittee on Civil Service of the Committee on Government Reform and the subcommittee's ranking minority member, the gentleman from Maryland, for their leadership on this issue. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. I want to commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), our chairman and ranking member, for their work on this legislation. Mr. Speaker, this bill includes many important provisions which will advance the treatment, the cure, and prevention of childhood diseases and disorders. I am also pleased to point out that this bill includes two titles which I have authored. Both titles promise to make significant advances in the treatment and prevention of childhood asthma and of autoimmune diseases like multiple sclerosis, juvenile diabetes, and lupus. Title V of the bill, the Children Asthma Relief Act of 1999, was introduced by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) and myself, and title XIX is based on H.R. 2573, the NIH Autoimmune Disease Initiative Act of 1999, which was authored by the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) and myself. Today more than 5 million children suffer from asthma. It is one of the most significant and prevalent chronic diseases in America. That is why this bill provides new funding for pediatric asthma prevention and treatment programs, allowing States and local communities to target and improve the health of low-income children suffering from asthma. As regards the autoimmune diseases, this would expand, intensify, and coordinate the efforts of NIH in research and education on autoimmune diseases. There are more than 80 autoimmune diseases, including multiple sclerosis, lupus, and rheumatoid arthritis, in which the body's immune system mistakenly attacks healthy tissues. These diseases affect more than 13.5 million Americans and are major causes of disability. Most striking of all, three-quarters of those infected with an autoimmune disease are women. The research efforts at NIH will be coordinated as a result of an office that would look at the activities throughout the NIH. I do want to point out some serious concerns over one section of the bill, title XII's adoption awareness provisions. This title was the subject of great controversy and debate. The original language raised many serious objections regarding adoption and abortion policy. I hope we will continue to look at this part of the bill, because it does offer some troublesome issues to be resolved.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4386, the Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Act of 2000. This bill is a variation of legislation originally introduced by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio) as H.R. 1070. Because of the untiring efforts of both of these sponsors, that legislation was finally considered by the Committee on Commerce and passed by a vote last October. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) has continued to work to see that this legislation would receive consideration by the full House. She has been a driving force for this legislation. In view of those efforts, I find it disturbing that her name appears nowhere on the legislation before us today. Instead, we have a new bill and new Republican lead sponsors. The bipartisan way this bill has been approached from the beginning is now paid lip service at best. Well, that will not fool the many groups who have long fought for this bill and who know the dedication of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) and many other Democrats who have fought for this effort as well. It will not fool the women of America. I think it reflects poorly on the Republican leadership for trying to take sole partisan credit for a bill that has been bipartisan from the very beginning and is bipartisan in support of this legislation today. The Republicans are trying to take partisan credit for this bill, and by the time we are finished, they will take partisan credit for Mother's Day. I regret also that the bill that is before us is not going to even be put into effect until the year 2001. This bill should have been effective immediately. It should have been brought up last year. Instead, what we have is a bill that will not be effective until 2001 but is called the Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Act of 2000. Notwithstanding these last-minute changes, this bill will provide crucial treatment and follow-up services under Medicaid for women screened under the Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening Program who are found to have cancer. Mr. Speaker, I was chairman of the Subcommittee on Health and the Environment when we originally passed the Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening Program into law. It was an important step forward. We did it on a bipartisan basis. It has proved to be a real success story in helping women. It remains a law that I am proud of. But when we have no services available for women who find that they have breast cancer, it, one, discourages many from even going in to be screened, and it is inhumane not to have those services available. However, there is one part of this bill that was added in committee that is of great concern to me, and I want to point that out. I believe the mandate concerning human papilloma virus, HPV, was a well-intended but deeply misguided provision. From a public health point of view, this provision will not achieve a meaningful improvement in health or in the prevention of HPV. On the contrary, it threatens to discourage the use of condoms in preventing other sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV and AIDS. I urge my colleagues to support the bill because of its important contributions to the treatment and care of American women with breast and cervical cancer. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4365, ``The Children's Health Research and Prevention Amendments of 2000.'' This bill includes many important provisions which will advance the treatment, cure and prevention of many childhood diseases and disorders. Important Titles on Asthma and Autoimmune Diseases I am very pleased that H.R. 4365 includes two titles which I have authored. Both titles promise to make significant advances in the treatment and prevention of childhood asthma and of autoimmune diseases, like multiple sclerosis, juvenile diabetes and lupus: Title V of this bill consists of H.R. 2840, ``The Children's Asthma Relief Act of 1999,'' introduced by Congressman Fred Upton and myself; and title XIX is based on H.R. 2573, ``The NIH Office of Autoimmune Diseases Act of 1999,'' which was authored by Congresswoman Connie Morella and myself. Children's Asthma Relief Act Today, more than 5 million American children have asthma, one of the most significant and prevalent chronic diseases in America. Surgeon General David Satcher recently concluded that the United States is ``moving in the wrong direction, especially among minority children in the urban communities.'' That is why the Children's Asthma Relief Act provides new funding for pediatric asthma prevention and treatment programs, allowing States and local communities to target and improve the health of low-income children suffering from asthma. The act would also increase the enrollment of these children into Medicaid and State Children's Health Insurance Programs, (CHIP), such as California's Healthy Families. I am particularly pleased that title V of H.R. 4365 includes mobile ``breathmobiles'' among the community-based programs eligible for funding. These school-based mobile clinics were developed by the southern California chapter of the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, in conjunction with Los Angeles County, Los Angeles Unified School District, and the University of Southern California. Finally, this title reflects the leadership and work of Senators Dick Durbin and Mike DeWine. It also has the strong support of leading child health and asthma organizations, including the American Lung Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs, the National Association of Children's Hospitals, the American Academy of Chest Physicians, and the Children's Health Fund. NIH Initiative on Autoimmune Diseases I am also pleased that H.R. 4365 establishes a new initiative at NIH to ``expand, intensify and coordinate'' research and education on autoimmune diseases. Last year, Congresswoman Morella and I introduced ``The NIH Office of Autoimmune Diseases Act of 1999.'' This legislation created an office in the NIH Office of the Director to ensure the Federal funding of autoimmune disease research is used optimally and that clinical treatments are developed as rapidly as possible. There are more than 80 autoimmune diseases--including multiple sclerosis, lupus, and rheumatoid arthritis--in which the body's immune system mistakenly attacks healthy tissues. These diseases affect more than 13.5 million Americans and are major causes of disability. Most striking of all, three-quarters of those afflicted with an autoimmune disease are women. Research on autoimmune diseases is spread through many institutes of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), just as treatments involve many clinical specialties. Increasingly, however, scientists are identifying the common risk factors and symptoms of autoimmune diseases. This is why greater coordination and additional resources are needed in our Nation's autoimmune research effort. Title XIX of H.R. 4365 adopts our office, transferring its activities and mission to an Autoimmune Diseases Coordinating Committee. Composed of NIH institute directors and permanently staffed with scientists and health professionals, the coordinating committee would be advised by a public advisory council. Most significantly, the coordinating committee, in close consultation with the advisory council, will develop a plan for research and education on autoimmune diseases. The plan will establish NIH priorities and the Director of NIH will ensure the plan is fully and appropriately funded. The strategic plan would create crucial new funding opportunities for autoimmune research, based on the professional and scientific judgments of researchers, patients, and clinicians. Finally, the committee would report to Congress on implementation of the plan, including the actual amounts dedicated by NIH to autoimmune disease research. The committee will also prospectively identify areas and projects of great promise which Congress should support. I cannot overstate the importance of these activities. In conjunction with the strategic plan, these reports will provide an objective, scientifically sound roadmap to Congress and NIH to follow in the pursuit of new treatments and cures for autoimmune diseases. controversy concerning title xii on adoption awareness However, I do have serious concerns over one section of this bill-- title XII's adoption awareness provisions. This title was the subject of great controversy and debate. The original language raised many serious objections concerning adoption policy as well as abortion policy. These objections were made by Members, including myself, and important public health organizations including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the National Association of Community Health Centers, and the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League. I recognize the sincerity of Chairman Bliley's concern on the issue of adoption. And he has clearly made significant efforts to achieve a compromise and to remove the more troubling provisions from this title. But while I support the passage of H.R. 4365, I join many colleagues in calling for careful scrutiny of this title when the legislation is in conference with the Senate. We must assure that its provisions do no harm to the provision of federally funded reproductive health services or to sensible adoption policy across the country. Again, I urge passage of this bill's important provisions for children's health, and ask every Member to join me in voting for H.R. 4365.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I commend Yom Hashoah, Holocaust Martyrs' and Heroes' Remembrance Day, which memorializes the six million Jews murdered during World War II. This somber anniversary is a tribute to the memory of the victims of the Holocaust, the heroism of those who fought back, and the strength of those who survived. A national holiday in Israel, Yom Hashoah is also commemorated in communities across this country. I strongly believe that we must act on our promise to ``never forget'' by acting on our responsibility to teach future generations about the lessons of the Holocaust. As we prepare our children for a new century, we must instill in them the tolerance and compassion to prevent the greatest terror of the past century from ever being repeated in the next. The legacy of the survivors of the Holocaust and of those who perished will only live on if we educate people about this history. It was only last month that British Courts exonerated historian Deborah Lipstadt of the libel charges brought by a Holocaust denier. Although the decision reaffirmed that Holocaust denial is false history and Nazi sympathy, it is unfortunate that such attempts to distort and trivialize the Holocaust abound. The release of the Eichmann diaries as evidence used in the trial only further establishes the reality of the Holocaust and the dangers of those who seek to deny it. Today is an opportunity to recommit ourselves to stand against anti- Semitism, discrimination, and intolerance in all forms, at home and abroad. We reflect upon the murder of 6 million innocent Jewish men, women and children, and the systematic destruction of families and vibrant communities. We reestablish our determination to confront the past, and our dedication to perpetuating the memory of those who suffered.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I commend Yom Hashoah, Holocaust Martyrs' and Heroes' Remembrance Day, which memorializes the six million Jews murdered during World War II. This somber anniversary is a tribute to the memory of the victims of the Holocaust, the heroism of those who fought back, and the strength of those who survived. A national holiday in Israel, Yom Hashoah is also commemorated across this country. I strongly believe that we must act on our promise to ``never forget'' by acting on our responsibility to teach future generations about the lessons of the Holocaust. As we prepare our children for a new century, we must instill in them the tolerance and compassion to prevent the greatest terror of the past century from ever being repeated in the next. The legacy of the survivors of the Holocaust and of those who perished will only live on if we educate people about this history. It was only last month that British Courts exonerated historian Deborah Lipstadt of the libel charges brought by a Holocaust denier. Although the decision reaffirmed that Holocaust denial is false history and Nazi sympathy, it is unfortunate that such attempts to distort and trivialize the Holocaust abound. The release of the Eichmann diaries as evidence used in the trial only further establishes the reality of the Holocaust and the dangers of those who seek to deny it. Today is an opportunity to recommit ourselves to stand against anti- Semitism, discrimination, and intolerance in all forms, at home and abroad. We reflect upon the murder of 6 million innocent Jewish men, women and children, and the systematic destruction of families and vibrant communities. We reestablish our determination to confront the past, and our dedication to perpetuating the memory of those who suffered.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. This amendment by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett) is a good amendment, and I ask my colleagues to accept it. It is a modest change to H.R. 3439. It is a good amendment, and I only wish it went further. The promotion of competition and diversity in broadcast has been the guidepost of American communications policy for over 50 years. We are currently experiencing unprecedented consolidation in this industry, however; and we cannot ignore its implications. Today, broadcast remains the way most Americans get their local news and information. Yet, there are fewer and fewer companies that control the content of the information they receive. That is why more than 2 years ago, FCC Chairman Bill Kennard proposed a new low-power FM radio service. It is a noncommercial service that will allow local churches, schools, community-based organizations, and governments to strengthen the ties in their communities. It is localism and diversity in the purest democratic sense. The FCC took its responsibility to protect the signals of incumbent broadcasters very seriously. They spent more than a year conducting lab tests and reviewing the potential for signal interference. It also extended its comment period in the rulemaking proceeding and scaled back its original proposal in an effort to address the incumbent broadcasters' concerns. For any objective viewpoint, the FCC bent over backwards to accommodate the concerns broadcasters raised. The FCC's extensive tests have shown that low-power radio will not harm existing signals. Chairman Kennard has vowed publicly time and again to protect every incumbent FM service from interference. H.R. 3439 effectively kills low-power radio. It prevents the FCC from issuing all but a small number of licenses and requires more studies into next year. New legislation would be required to permit the program to move forward once the studies are completed. The Barrett-Rush amendment would simply permit the FCC to implement the program 6 months after the new round of studies is completed, and it has demonstrated again that interference is not a problem. Passage of H.R. 3439 without the Barrett-Rush amendment will end the promise of greater localism and diversity that noncommercial low-power radio can bring. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment and to vote against the legislation if this amendment is defeated.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, today I pay tribute to Dr. Alfred Munzer who will be honored on May 7, 2000, by the American Lung Association. For his public service and outstanding achievements, he will be awarded the Lung Association's distinguished Will Ross Medal for outstanding volunteer service. A past president of the American Lung Association, Dr. Munzer has ably served the organization at every level--from service as president of the American Lung Association of the District of Columbia and president of the DC Thoracic Society to service on the Lung Association's national Board of Directors and numerous committees. More recently, he is focusing much of his advocacy work in the international arena, particularly efforts to control tobacco use on a global basis. Over the last two decades, Dr. Munzer's work with the Congress has made a vital contribution to public health and a significant difference in shaping national policy. As a frequent witness at hearings before congressional committees, including the Health and the Environment Subcommittee, which I used to chair, Dr. Munzer has testified on many lung-health issues, ranging from the health effects of air pollution to the need for strong tobacco control efforts. Dr. Munzer is a skilled communicator who speaks eloquently about his own experience. He has an exceptional ability to put a human face on complicated health issues. Throughout his career, Dr. Munzer has dedicated his life to helping and inspiring those around him. It is clear from his achievements that he is truly committed to making a difference in the lives of others. Dr. Munzer has given his time graciously, not only lending his expertise to the Congress but also caring for his patients at the Washington Adventist Hospital and teaching medical students at Georgetown University. I am grateful for his service and commend him for his dedication to helping others. Congress is wiser and the American people are healthier thanks to Dr. Munzer. It is my distinct pleasure to ask my colleagues to join with me in saluting Dr. Munzer for his outstanding achievements and to congratulate him for receiving the prestigious honor granted him by the American Lung Association.