Henry Waxman

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).

Mr. WAXMAN. So we do have that day set aside.

Mr. WAXMAN. Well, every year. It is in May.

Mr. WAXMAN. Do you know when that is?

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler), before he leaves, if he knows that we have a National Day of Prayer on the books?

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Idaho (Mrs. Chenoweth) for sponsoring and bringing the resolution to the floor today. This legislation provides us time for an important discussion. I say discussion and not debate because I don't think there is a significant debatable issue on the value of prayer. I don't know of any Members of this House who opposes God or prayer. But what we should discuss is whether we are seeing a continuing trend of inching closer and closer to mixing politics and religion, government and religion, which we have traditionally separated. It is now before us in a way which we should approach with a serious and nonpartisan manner. I cannot think of any issue that is more fundamental to our system of government than our Constitution's enduring guarantee of the freedom of religion. One of the inspirations the founders of our country had was the insight that all Americans should be free to believe or not to believe in one faith or even any faith. Americans can believe in the religion we choose, and worship as we believe proper. Now I do not question the desire for religious response to help this Nation cope and recuperate from the tragedies that befell the communities of Jonesboro and Springfield and Littleton. I do not challenge the importance of religious guidance as a source of healing. I do not oppose the call for a period of reflection to reinvigorate our sense of compassion and humility. But I do question whether it is the role of Congress to initiate, mandate, or manipulate personal religious expression. This country has a people that is far more religious than most other countries, and I believe a great part of that is the separation of church and state that we value so deeply. Americans are more religious because they do not have the cynicism of other countries, where there is a government-sponsored religion and religion and government and politicization are seen all as one. There is no official state religion in our country, and therefore people take their personal religious decisions much more seriously. They recognize that our founders argued for the separation of church and state and wanted to make sure that religion was not politicized. Our founders warned of the corruption of church and state from a mutual infection when the two are joined together. A mild infection might be when clerics reach out for government funds and then obey government regulations. A much more virile corruption is when we see theocracies around the world wage actions that are clearly inhumane in the name of their religion and of God. Thomas Jefferson opposed any kind of involvement in religion. He said he did not think that he had any authority to direct the religious experience of his constituents, and I think he made a very powerful case where he argued that we ought to allow this to be one that is very personal. Now the proposal before us is an interesting one because it calls for a day of atonement, a day of fasting, a day of prayer. As a Jewish American, we have a day of atonement in our religion that is precisely, it seems to me, the kind of thing that the author of this resolution might have envisioned, a 24-hour period. We neither eat nor drink; we devote the day to prayer and penitence. But a very fundamental part of that day is a recognition that in repentance it is repentance, prayer and tzadaka. Tzadaka is sometimes looked at as charity, but it really means actions of good deeds. The reading of the day is one on ritual, but another reading of the day, which is even more significant, is one from Isaiah where in that reading God says to those who simply fast, afflict themselves, wear sackcloth and ashes, God said: Is this what I want? Is this what I have called for? Does this satisfy me? And his response in Isaiah is: When you do acts of good deeds, it is not sufficient to inflict yourself with repentance unless you share your bread with the hungry, that you bring the poor that are cast out to your house, when you see the naked that you cover him and that you not hide yours from your own flesh. Acts of righteousness are not mentioned in this resolution. It is only repentance and prayer, but a day of atonement should do more than that. Our obligations, as Members of Congress, are not to tell religious leaders how to practice their religion or tell people who are religiously oriented what they must do to meet the needs of their Maker. We can act in ways that deal with the problems of this world, and that is what we should be doing. I will not oppose this resolution on a voice vote, but I think we ought to think carefully about the separation of church and State which may be infringing upon.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. I thank the gentleman for allowing me to express not only my support for this proposal but my appreciation to the chairman the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) for moving this so expeditiously. I want to congratulate the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) on his leadership in all of these issues that have come before the Committee on Government Reform. I urge all Members to support the resolution.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my concerns regarding H. Res. 207 and its underlying legislation, H.R. 815, The American Community Renewal Act of 1999. No one disputes the role that community and faith-based organizations play in sustaining and strengthening our communities and neighborhoods, our cities and towns. Throughout my career, I have shared the deep interest which motivates this resolution in harnessing the energy and creativity of community and faith-based organizations in developing solutions to our nation's persistent poverty and other serious social problems. Instead, my concerns center on language in H.R. 815 which denigrates the importance of professional education and training to effective alcohol and drug treatment. H.R. 815 purports to improve the availability of substance abuse treatment and counseling services. Instead, its provisions undercut the proven importance and competence of qualified service providers. Let me specify the problematic sections of H.R. 815. In congressional findings, the bill states that ``formal educational qualifications for counselors and other personnel in drug treatment programs may undermine the effectiveness of such programs'' and ``may hinder or prevent the provision of needed drug treatment services.'' Mr. Speaker, this is simply untrue. Professional education is a foundation of effective substance abuse treatment and prevention. It is a critical basis for our country's longstanding efforts to treat and prevent substance abuse. Our current national drug control strategy is premised on the fundamental importance of medical and specialized training for substance abuse service providers. Mr. Speaker, the accompanying provisions of H.R. 815 would undercut the States in certifying and licensing substance abuse service providers. They would require the States to accept religious education and training as wholly equivalent to drug treatment. Again, this runs headlong against our nation's efforts to work in partnership with the States, professional and community organizations in combating substance abuse. Indeed, religious organizations already play an important part in these efforts through federally funded and state-funded substance abuse programs. I am deeply concerned that language of this kind is being contemplated to this time by the Congress. As a member of the Commerce Committee, I am involved in work which will lead to reauthorization of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). These problematic provisions of H.R. 815 fly in the face of the vital accomplishments and continuing work of our Federal agencies on substance abuse treatment and prevention, including SAMHSA and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) at the National Institutes of Health. At this time, I wish to include for the Record a letter in opposition to H. Res. 207 which I received from a wide range of national patient and provider organizations, including the National Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Directors, the Partnership for Recovery and the American Society of Addiction Medicine. June 21, 1999. Members, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Member of Congress: The undersigned organizations oppose H. Res. 207 and the portions of the American Community Renewal Act which will hurt the provision of professionally competent alcohol and drug treatment services. Unfortunately, the Community Renewal Act will undermine treatment effectiveness. The Act will override state licensure and certification of alcohol and drug counselors, crushing state guarantees of safety in alcoholism and drug addiction treatment. The Act actually states that alcohol and drug treatment counseling is not a professional field and that formal education for counselors is detrimental to the practice of effective counseling. This is simply inaccurate. Alcoholism and drug addiction is a disease. Consequently, alcohol and drug counseling has long required specialized knowledge and training compelling the use of professional practitioners. Education equals effective alcoholism and drug addition treatment. Even more troubling, the Act will require States which require formal education to deliver treatment services to ``give credit for religious education and training equivalent to credit given for secular course work in drug treatment . . .'' Alcohol and drug treatment is a medical service requiring medical knowledge. Treatment professionals specialize in the diagnosis, assessment and treatment of psychoactive disorders and other substance abuse/use/dependency. These counselors and other professionals possess a constellation of knowledge that is unique to the alcoholism and drug abuse counseling profession, and distinguishes ADCs from other related professions and specialties. Religious education and training is not equivalent to training given for the medical specialty of alcohol and drug treatment. The Act also mandates States to waive their formal educational requirements under certain circumstances or face lawsuits. Finally the legislation attempts to remedy a problem that does not exist. Religious organizations are already entitled to receive federal funding by complying with the rules for charitable organizations. All of our organizations seek to include spirituality in the lives of individuals. Spirituality is an important component of treatment, and mechanisms already exist to bring this aspect of recovery to patients without changing current law. By stating that establishing formal education requirements may hinder treatment and by attempting to equate religious education with knowledge about alcoholism and drug dependence, the Community Renewal Act undermines treatment efforts and removes scarce funding from effective treatment programs. Unfortunately, this legislation ensures that the millions of people suffering from addiction, their families, employers and communities will be harmed by incompetent treatment. The Community Renewal Act will hurt the provision of professionally competent alcohol and drug treatment services. For this reason, we urge you to vote against H. Res. 207. Sincerely, American Counseling Association; American Methadone Treatment Association; American Society of Addiction Medicine; Association of Halfway House Alcoholism Programs of North America; College on Problems of Drug Dependence; Legal Action Center; National Association of Addiction Treatment Providers; National Association of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Counselors; National Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Directors; National Association of Student Assistance Professionals; National Coalition of State Alcohol and Drug Treatment and Prevention Associations; National Council for Community Behavioral Healthcare; National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence; National TASC; Partnership for Recovery; The Betty Ford Center; Caron Foundation; Hazelden Foundation; Valley Hope Association; Research Society on Alcoholism; Therapeutic Communities of America.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution, and commend the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health and the Environment, Mr. Bilirakis, and the ranking member, Mr. Brown, for bringing this resolution before the House today. No one can doubt the value of increasing public awareness of prostate cancer. Screening and testing can lead to early detection and effective treatment of this all-too-common form of cancer. But while I strongly support this resolution, I cannot help but note the contrast between our eagerness to act here--even without committee consideration--with the failure of our committee to consider another important piece of legislation, a very reasonable and broadly supported bill to provide the option of Medicaid treatment for low-income women with breast cancer. I am proud to be one of nearly 250 cosponsors of H.R. 1070. This bill was introduced by Congressman Lazio and Congresswoman Eshoo to remedy the inexcusable situation we have now, where we screen low-income women for breast cancer, but then are unable to provide timely treatment when the condition is discovered. This legislation provides States the option to provide that treatment under Medicaid. It is a bill that has broad support, both inside and outside the Congress. Yet we have held no hearings on this bill in subcommittee. We have no schedule to mark it up. If we did act to bring this bill to the House floor, I feel certain it would enjoy the same broad support as the resolution we have before us today. So while I commend Mr. Bilirakis for his efforts on the prostate cancer resolution, I also hope we will soon again be on this House floor discussing the imminent passage of H.R. 1070. The women of America suffering from breast cancer deserve no less.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. As the author of the legislation that required food labeling of nutritional information on products, I want to tell my colleagues why this is not the same kind of area where government ought to be involved. I think we have to be very, very careful when government is going to be involved in intruding itself in the expression of ideas. Do we really want the same label to be on Schindler's List that we would have on Natural Born Killers? Do we want to put a chilling effect on entertainment, on literature, on creativity? I think it is inappropriate for government to do this sort of thing, and I thought it was inappropriate for the V-chip, and it never seems to satisfy people, because there seems to be this great desire to move from one label to the next label to start government censorship, and that is precisely the kind of thing that government ought to restrain itself from doing. I would hope we would vote against this amendment.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, it is amazing to me how the Republican leadership seeks to deal with difficult and important issues. Their solution to the campaign finance mess is not to debate reform and limit special interest contributions, but to stonewall action and advocate lifting all spending limits. How do they deal with the problem of cigarette smoking, where we know 3,000 kids start smoking each day because the tobacco industry targets them in order to get them to smoke? They refuse to bring up any legislation on the subject. Their solution to the horror of children killing children with guns is not to make it harder for kids to get weapons, but to try to shift the cause of the problem to movies and propose unconstitutional attacks on the First Amendment. Mr. Chairman, I want to say at the outset that it ought to be clear that movie makers, and many of them are my constituents, have an obligation to think through the consequences of what they offer their audiences, especially impressionable kids. They bear a serious responsibility for their action. But it is important for us to also keep in mind that these films are creative works that audiences line up here and around the world to see, and that is why they are America's largest export. And other countries see these very same films, but we do not see the level of violence that we do see in America. It is startling to realize that the death rate in the U.S. involving guns was nearly 14 per 100,000 people. Yet when we compare that with Canada, it is four; or Australia, three; Sweden, two; Germany, 1.5; and in Japan, less than 1. Why such a disparity between our country and all these countries that watch our films? Violent films and TV programming are notoriously popular in Japan, yet the Japanese thrive in a society with a very low crime rate. The obvious answer is the availability of guns and lack of common sense control laws in our country. And it is exactly that which the Republican leadership has contrived to have us not be able to deal with because of the NRA, the tobacco, and other lobbyists that are so supportive of their political efforts.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join my colleagues in speaking against the ill advised, anti-consumer legislation, H.R. 1598, ``The Patent Fairness Act of 1999.'' My first observation is that, having reviewed this bill, I would suggest it deserves a more appropriate title, like ``The Claritin Monopoly Extension Act'' or ``The Patently Unfair to Consumers Act of 1999.'' This proposal is a multibillion dollar assault on consumers. By keeping out competition, the drug companies which benefit from H.R. 1598 can rake in money out of the pockets of Americans who already find it hard to pay for their medicines. The best estimates of this bill's cost to consumers range in the billions of dollars. We have no idea as yet of its potential costs to the Federal government, but it will undoubtedly line the pockets of a handful of companies with money taken directly from the pockets of American taxpayers, including the indigent and the elderly. H.R. 1598 is nothing more than a recycled versions of the patent extension which the pharmaceutical manufacturer, Schering-Plough, has attempted on repeated occasions to sneak into law. For many years, Schering has sought to extend its patent protections for Claritin, a prescription antihistamine with over $900 million in annual U.S. sales. Let me share with my colleagues the sordid history of this bill. Last year, Schering tried to sneak this patent extension into the omnibus appropriations bill. You may recall this is the legislation renowned for having been enacted into law with scarcely any Member claiming to have read it in its entirely. Only through vigorous opposition and publicity was this effort defeated. The year before, Schering lobbied the Senate for an amendment to omnibus patent reform legislation granting outright five-year patent term extensions for a number of drugs, including Claritin. And in 1996, Schering tried unsuccessfully to attach Charitin patent extensions to the omnibus appropriations bill, the continuing resolution and the agriculture appropriations bill. In the first half of that year alone, Schering spent over $1 million in lobbying the Congress. This year, H.R. 1598 has been introduced. I have reviewed this legislation and can state unequivocally that, owing to many serious problems this legislation should not be enacted into law. First, I am deeply concerned by the misreading of legislative history which has characterize the introduction of H.R. 1598. As the coauthor of the 1984 Waxman-Hatch Act, I want to set the record straight about the legislative history of the Act. It has been alleged that Schering and the five other companies which would benefit from this special-interest, pork barrel legislation-- Smith Kline Beecham, Bristol Myers Squibb, Bayer, Rhone Poulenc Rhorer and Hoechst Marion Roussell--somehow were arbitrarily or unexpectedly penalized by the Waxman-Hatch Act. Because these companies were the sponsors of drugs in the ``pipeline'' seeking approval at the time of the Act's enactment in 1984, those products are only eligible for a 2- year patent extension, and not the 5-year patent extension available to products approved after 1984. The proponents of H.R. 1598 have called this provision in the Act ``arbitrary'' and unfair. It is no such thing. It is eminently fair and motivated by sound public policy. The pipeline drugs were not made eligible for 5 years of patent extension precisely because the point of the patent extensions was to encourage the research and development of future products. All products which had not yet undergone teasing or review by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) were judged to be appropriately eligible for the full 5 years of patent extension. I seriously doubt that Schering has told anyone that it already received a 2-year patent extension under this law. The company just wants another pass at the trough. But to make clear why the Act's intent in this regard is precise and fair, I want to quote the legislative history from the 1984 House committee report on this point: By extending patents for up to five years for products developed in the future . . . the Committee expects that research intensive companies will have the necessary inventive to increase their research and development activities. This is the clear policy which motivated this provision--to encourage additional research, not to simply increase profits on existing products. Only now, faced with their imminent patent expirations, are a handful of companies lobbying vigorously to defeat this policy. They have no interest in research or feature products. Their sole concern is preserving their existing monopoly at the expense of consumers. Let me make a final point about H.R. 1598. If this patent extension bill is snuck into law, it will create a huge loophole which will allow other drug companies to come and use it for other patent extensions at the Patent Office, a bad policy and worse precedent. As consumer groups have made clear, H.R. 1598 is a back-door for drug companies to lucrative patent extensions. The bill creates a stacked deck in favor of drug companies. It forces the burden of proof into opponents of pork-barrel patent extensions. It creates a rebuttable presumption in favor of the drug companies. It restricts the FDA from providing input about the scientific judgments it had to make about safety and effectiveness. And it puts the Patent Office in the categorically inappropriate role of second-guessing the FDA about those scientific issues. As I've said before, this is like putting the IRS in charge of reviewing how NIH grants biomedical research funding. This bill creates a terrible precedent of second guessing our public health agencies, which protect the public by ensuring drug safety and efficacy. What Schering calls ``regulatory delay'' may well be the result of its own delays through miscalculations, complications in its research and safety problems with its product. Schering conveniently never mentions that Claritin's ``regulatory delay'' resulted in no small part from the need to be sure that Claritin was not linked to cancer, as scientific data suggested during its review by FDA. One of the points of the Waxman-Hatch Act was to stop companies like Schering from lobbying Congress for patent extensions. It has been generally successful, with the exception of rogue companies like Schering. If Schering believes it was unduly delayed, we have only to await the General Accounting Office's review of the circumstances surrounding the approval of Claritin. The introduction of H.R. 1598 leads me to believe that Schering is simply afraid of what the GAO will find. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1598 is a terrible deal for consumers. It creates a blatantly unfair administrative process which undercuts the public health. It does violence to the 1984 Waxman-Hatch Act. And it fulfills the public's worst expectations of Congress as a body motivated by the interests of lucrative industries, like the prescription drug industry, and not of average Americans struggling to afford their medicines.

Mr. WAXMAN

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

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) very much for yielding to me this time. This bill does not provide taxpayers subsidies for abortion. This bill before us is an appropriation to fund the Food and Drug Administration. The Food and Drug Administration receives applications from those private industries that manufacture drugs who come to them and say we want to market our drug. But the law says we must apply to FDA to assure the public that the drug is safe and effective. The FDA then uses its scientific method to determine whether the drug ought to be sold as safe and effective. The Coburn amendment would prevent the FDA from using science. It would say to the FDA they may not approve a drug that is safe and effective because we are going to substitute a political judgment for what has been a scientific judgment under which the FDA has been mandated in carrying out its responsibilities. So what we are doing is preventing taxpayers' funding of the Food and Drug Administration to determine whether a drug is safe and effective. Now, there is an interesting argument that the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) makes, and I am sure he is sincere, that his amendment would only apply to a drug solely to be used for abortion purposes. But that is not what his amendment says. His amendment says that the FDA cannot use any of its funds for testing, development, or approval of any drug for the chemical inducement of abortion. Well, ``for the chemical inducement of abortion'' may be a side effect of a drug that may be intended to cure cancer. It may be intended for some other purpose. Now abortion is legal. If abortion is legal, why should we not allow funds to be used by private enterprise to develop a drug that would lead to safer abortions, earlier, safer abortions? We have heard the story about the link of abortions with breast cancer. I have seen no evidence of that. But let us say that there is a drug that would allow a termination of a pregnancy without any additional risk that may now be out there for those who do decide to terminate a pregnancy. This amendment is a political amendment. It really is inappropriate in this legislation not to allow the FDA to do its job, which is to use science, to allow research based on science as the FDA considers whether a drug ought to be marketed to the American people. I would hope that we would oppose this amendment and let FDA do its job and allow a procedure that is legal to be done in the safest possible way.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I will insert for the Record a statement from the Food and Drug Administration where they say very clearly they do not read the gentleman's amendment as he does. Their lawyers have said this will prevent them from dealing with any drug that is brought to them for approval that may have the consequence of terminating a pregnancy. But my view is, even if its original intended purpose is to terminate a pregnancy, if it is a safer way to do that, we may be saving lives as a result. We may be saving the life of the mother.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join Reps. Gary Condit, Ed Markey, John Dingell, Sherrod Brown, Jim Turner, and my other colleagues in introducing the Health Information Privacy Act of 1999. There is an urgent need for Congress to enact legislation to protect the privacy of medical records. We have worked hard to develop a consensus approach to achieve this goal. Health records contain some of our most personal information. Unfortunately, there is no comprehensive federal law that protects the privacy of medical records. As a result, we face a constant threat of serious privacy intrusions. Our records can be bought and sold for commercial gain, disclosed to employers, and used to deny us insurance. There have been numerous disturbing reports of such inappropriate use and disclosure of health information. When individual have inadequate control over their health information, our health care system as a whole suffers. For example, a recent survey by the California HealthCare Foundation found that one out of every seven adults has done something ``out of the ordinary'' to keep health information confidential, including steps such as giving inaccurate information to their providers or avoiding care together. The Health Information Privacy Act would protect the privacy of health information and ensure that individuals have appropriate control over their health records. It is based on three fundamental principles. First, health information should not be used or disclosed without the authorization or knowledge of the individual, except in narrow circumstances where there is an overriding public interest. Second, individuals should have fundamental rights regarding their health records, such as the right to access, copy, and amend their records, and the opportunity to seek protection for especially sensitive information. Third, federal legislation should provide a ``floor,'' not a ``ceiling,'' so that states and the Secretary of Health and Human Services can establish additional protections as appropriate. Congress faces an August 21 deadline for passing comprehensive legislation to protect the privacy of health information. I am very pleased to have come together with Mr. Condit, Mr. Markey, Mr. Dingell, Mr. Brown, and Mr. Turner in developing this commonsense legislation. These members have been leaders in health care and privacy issues for years. As a result of their expertise and insight, I believe we have produced a consensus bill that colleagues with a wide spectrum of perspective can support. A recent editorial in the Los Angeles Times exhorted Congress to ``fulfill its promise to pass the nation's first medical privacy bill.'' It called for legislators in both houses to ``embrace [this] compromise language'' that my colleagues and I have drafted. I hope that my colleagues will join me in cosponsoring this legislation, and I look forward to working with them to ensure that Congress meets its responsibility to address this important issue.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1141, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Conference Report. This bill contains a myriad of provisions of the worst sort--riders slipped in without ever being considered by the full House. One rider stands out among the rest as being particularly ill- conceived and short-sighted: the provision to completely give up the federal share of the tobacco settlement without any commitment by the states to improve public health. Ten years from now, people will look back on this legislation and ask how Congress could give away nearly $140 billion federal health care dollars without guaranteeing that even a single penny would be spent on public health. They will ask how Congress could overturn thirty years of Medicaid law--without a single hearing so that members could understand the ramifications of the legislation and without any action by the full House so that Members could debate and vote on the issue. This provision has no business being on an emergency supplemental appropriations bill that provides disaster aid for Central America and funds for military operation and refugee relief in Kosovo. It is not an emergency appropriation issue in any sense. What it is, however, is one of the biggest giveaways of federal health care dollars I have seen in my entire congressional career. The size of this giveaway is breathtaking. Nearly $140 billion federal health care dollars are being given to the states to spend as they please. That is enough to pay for the existing out-of-pocket prescription drug costs for every single Medicare beneficiary who currently lacks prescription drug coverage. Yet these federal health care dollars are being relinquished with absolutely no commitment that the states spend the money on improving prevent youth smoking, improving public health, or increasing access to health care. Mr. Speaker, when history looks back on this legislation, it will be seen as a deal that served the tobacco interest, not the public health interest. I strongly believe that it is the height of irresponsibility for the Congress to give away billions of federal health care dollars for nothing. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote no on H.R. 1141.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to encourage my colleagues to sponsor H.R. 1341, ``The National Family Caregiver Support Act of 1999.'' Last month, I joined my colleague, Matthew Martinez, in sponsoring this important piece of legislation. Every American family is doing more with less time--but none more so than the families who must care for an older relative with chronic illnesses like Alzheimer's or with mental or physical disabilities. Growing numbers of families are choosing to care for their own at home over placing sick relatives in institutionalized care settings. This is what the New York Times calls ``a fundamental shift in health care.'' Today, dutiful children and caring spouses provide the staggering equivalent of $200 billion in direct care to their elderly or ailing relatives. At least 21 million Americans provide such free care--and the number is growing very quickly. In fact, one in four Americans currently provides care to a person with a chronic medical condition. Perhaps the best way to understand this tremendous demand on our families is to think of the time required of them. All of us are familiar with the 40 hour work week. Setting aside the expense, the emotional demands and the need for training of family caregivers, we know today that four million American households offer at least 40 hours of unpaid family care to an older relative every week. Family caregivers of Alzheimer's patients spent an average 69 to 100 hours per week providing such care. We must also bear in mind that these families are juggling multiple responsibilities. More than 40 percent of family caregivers also care for children under 18--and two-thirds are full-time or part-time workers. You may have heard the term, ``the sandwich generation'' applied to the many Baby Boomers who are struggling to balance work, children and care for their parents. This is having an important impact on the workplace as well; according to corporate executives surveyed last year by the Conference Board, elder care will soon top child care as a major concern by employees. There is every indication that these demands on family caregivers will grow. Americans are living longer and the need for long-term care is growing quickly. Cost pressures in our health care system are reducing hospital stays and increasing outpatient care. These trends virtually assure that family caregivers will play an increasingly indispensable role in our health care delivery system. That is why we introduced H.R. 1341. These families need help. Modest, targeted initiatives like H.R. 1341 can do the most to help them by building on existing, successful efforts to provide assistance. Let me give a few examples. According to experts, ``the greatest need for most caregivers is rest.'' H.R. 1341 would provide them with quality respite care. States like California and Pennsylvania are leaders in providing assistance at ``one-stop shops.'' H.R. 1341 would expand these efforts through Federal-State partnerships. Local agencies, nonprofits and community groups currently provide family caregivers with training, counseling, referrals and crucial respite care. H.R. 1341 would reward outstanding, innovative programs and identify those of national significance. 1999 is the International Year of Older Persons. In recognition of this important milestone. I encourage my colleagues to demonstrate their commitment to securing the dignity and health of older Americans and their families by cosponsoring H.R. 1434, ``The National Family Caregiver Support Act of 1999.''

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my appreciation to Mr. Pallone and Mr. Porter for organizing this special order today to commemorate the Armenian genocide. This year, as NATO fights ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, it is especially important for us to remember the Armenian genocide, and to remember our promise of ``never again.'' On April 24, 1915, more than two hundred Armenian religious, political, and intellectual leaders were arrested and killed. From 1915 to 1923, 1\1/2\ million people lost their lives in the slaughter. Another half million lost their homes and property, and watched as the symbols of their religion and culture were destroyed. Anyone who has studied or discussed these tragic events 84 years ago--not to mention the preposterous historical revisionism that still exist to this day--can fully understand how important this tribute is to the Armenian community in this country, some of whom still live with the memories of the horror. Regrettably, the world's inaction in the face of these atrocities sent a message that human rights violations would be tolerated. The line from Armenia to Auschwitz is direct. When contemplating the destruction of the Jewish people, Hitler is reported to have said, ``who remembers the Armenians?'' This day is set aside to remind us that those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. As we speak, in Yugoslavia, Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic is engaged in gross violations of the human rights of ethnic Albanians in Kosovo. The images splashed across our television screens and newspapers of ethnic cleansing, forced deportations, and random executions there are horrors for which the Armenian genocide was a tragic precedent. Today, we honor the memory of the victims of the Armenian genocide, and vow once more that genocide will not go unnoticed and unmourned. We gather today to reaffirm our unwavering commitment to fight all crimes against humanity.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is for one purpose only. It would delay the Bureau of the Census from getting the report to the States in time for them to redistrict using the most accurate statistically approved methods to get the count that will be the one that should be achieved in a census. Now we are really looking at an Alice in Wonderland situation. I have a chart. Maybe we can get this chart up. This chart shows those groups that believe using modern statistical methods will give us the most accurate census: The National Academy of Sciences, the American Statistical Association, even President Bush's Census Bureau director, all the experts. Let me have the chart of those who think that statistical methods are unconstitutional, inappropriate: The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller ) and the Republican leadership. Are we supposed to believe that all of these people from the Academy of Sciences are doing something for partisan purposes but the Republican Party is out to get us the most accurate census? Well, I think if we want to look at their motives we ought to look at the statements of some of their leaders. In a refreshing moment of candor, one Republican strategist said that this is a do or die issue for the Republican majority in the House, because what the Republicans really fear is that a more accurate count will include more African Americans, more Hispanics and that they will in turn elect more Democrats to Congress. Alice in Wonderland told us that up is down, down means up, and here what we have is when the Republicans say they are nonpartisan, they are accusing everybody else of being partisan. The fact of the matter is that there will be local participation in making the census as accurate as possible. That is really not the issue involved. The issue involved is that this legislation would make it impossible for the Bureau of the Census to do their job in a professional way, as has been recommended by every nonpartisan organization. I urge a defeat of this proposal and an adoption of an amendment that will be offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, the Olympic Games hold a special place in the hearts of Americans. We all have our favorite Olympic memory. For some, it's Jesse Owens' courageous performance in Nazi Germany in 1936, or Wilma Rudolph's three gold medals in 1960. For others, it's Mark Spitz's incredible 11 swimming medals, or the U.S. hockey team's ``Miracle on Ice'' in 1980. Sadly, however, the spirit of fair play that epitomizes the Olympic movement has been tarnished by recent controversies involving the International Olympic Committee (IOC). Over the past few months, we have learned how IOC members have received large sums of cash and lavish gifts from cities vying to host the Olympic Games. These cash payments and gifts were intended to influence how IOC members voted on which cities would be chosen as Olympic hosts. One quarter of IOC members have already been implicated in these allegations. The truly sad aspect of this scandal is that this culture of greed and corruption has been flourishing for years. Those involved in the scandal clearly deserve blame, but so too does the system that allows such a culture to develop. Since the bribery allegations first surfaced last November, the IOC has shown that it is unwilling to take the necessary steps to reform itself. Consequently, I am introducing ``The International Olympic Committee Reform Act.'' This bill is aimed at restoring the integrity and dignity of the Olympic Games. The process by which cities are selected to host the Olympic Games should be based on which city would be the best host, and not on the amount of money that is spent on gifts for IOC members. This bill is based on a series of proposals recommended by an independent commission led by former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell. Among other things, the Mitchell commission recommended that the IOC ban the giving or receipt of gifts of more than nominal value. The commission also recommended that the IOC subject its members and leadership to periodic reelection. The bill I have introduced today would prohibit American corporations from providing any financial support to the IOC until the IOC adopts the Mitchell commission reforms. I regret that this legislation has to be introduced. I had hoped that the IOC would adopt the necessary reforms on its own accord. It is apparent, however, that the IOC is reluctant to take strong and immediate action. Perhaps, the only thing that will get the IOC's attention is if American corporate money is cut off. Currently, the IOC derives a substantial portion of its operating revenues from American corporations: NBC has paid $3.5 billion for the television rights for the next five Olympic Games; and nine American corporations each pay $10 million a year for the right to be an official Olympic sponsor. Quite simply, the IOC could not operate without American corporate money. In recent editorial in the Los Angeles Times, Olympic gold medalist Frank Shorter wrote: ``The United States, through corporate sponsors and the funding provided through the [U.S. Olympic Committee]. Is the single largest contributor to the Olympics. Its voice is one the IOC simply cannot ignore.'' It is my hope that this bill will be the first step in restoring the legitimacy of the Olympic movement. In the past, Congress has been quick to act when it has disapproved of the activities of foreign countries, international organizations, and multinational corporations. We should be no less willing to act when Olympics are involved. I ask all my colleagues to join me and support this legislation. As Senator Mitchell explained, ``The Olympic flame must burn clean once again.''

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, today I and my colleagues are introducing legislation to ensure that the federal Medicaid dollars recovered in last year's tobacco settlement are spent to improve the public health and to fund effective tobacco control policy. In the last few months, the states have been asking Congress to overturn thirty years of Medicaid law. The states want to keep the federal health care dollars recovered under the settlement and to use these federal dollars for whatever purposes they desire. In the process, members are being urged to rewrite Medicaid law. This is wrong. Half of the funds that are being recovered are federal funds that were spent by the federal government as its share of the Medicaid expenses for tobacco-related illness. These funds should not be used to build bridges, pave roads, or fund tax cuts. They should be used for health services and tobacco control programs. That is why today I and my colleagues are introducing legislation that will ensure that these federal health care dollars are spent in the best way possible: to improve public health and to protect the health of our children. I know that this position is not popular among the governors, but it is right. As federally elected officials, we have a responsibility to ensure that these federal health care dollars are spent wisely. It is indisputable that the state settlements with the tobacco companies were in large part based on Medicaid claims. Tobacco-related illness costs the Medicaid program nearly $13 billion a year, and over half of those costs are paid for by the federal government. Money from the tobacco settlement should be spent to break the cycle of addiction, sickness, and death caused by smoking. That is why this legislation will require that 25% of the funds be spent by the states precisely for these purposes. The bill also requires that 25% of the tobacco settlement be spent by the states on health. We have given the states options to tailor their expenditures to their priority health care needs. They can use the funds for outreach to enroll individuals--children, the elderly, and the disabled--who are eligible for health services or to help with their Medicare premiums. They can use them to improve Medicaid coverage or services or they can use them to extend public health or preventive health programs. Under this bill, most of the federal dollars are given back to the states, in recognition of their leadership role in suing the tobacco companies. There are, however, a few tobacco control activities that are best carried out at the federal level. For this reason, the bill retains at the federal level $500 million to fund a nationwide anti- tobacco education campaign and $100 million to implement the Surgeon General's recommendations on minority tobacco use. The bill also contains federal provisions to ensure that our tobacco farmers have a stable economic environment so that they can begin an orderly transition to a more diversified economy. Today the original claims in the tobacco litigation have become story and legend, and it is easy for the facts to be forgotten. But the fact is that a substantial portion of the tobacco settlement is federal health care dollars. It is not the states' money to spend as they please. It is our duty and responsibility to ensure that these federal dollars are spent to improve our nation's health.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Congresswoman Lee for organizing a Special Order during Women's History Month to recognize the achievements of women of color. I am pleased to take this opportunity to honor a few of the women of color who made important contributions to the entertainment industry earlier this century: Marian Anderson, Ella Fitzgerald, Bessie Smith, and Hattie McDaniel. These incredibly talented women overcame great obstacles to earn international acclaim and forge a path for the women who followed. The legendary contralto Marian Anderson never took no for an answer. From her early days as a choir member, to her historical concert at the Lincoln Memorial, Ms. Anderson struggled against racism and ignorance to become one of the world's premiere opera stars. In the years after her legendary performance, she was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor by President Carter and went on to serve as a delegate to the United Nations. Ella Fitzgerald was the first woman presented with the Los Angeles Urban League's Whitney M. Young, Jr. Award, which honors those who build bridges among races and generations. Ella Fitzgerald was a major force in the music world and contributed to the evolution of jazz and the business of entertainment during her long, distinguished career. Named the ``First Lady of Song,'' she was a pioneer in her field and went on to win ten Grammys. Although she did not live to see her fortieth birthday, Bessie Smith had a tremendous influence on entertainment. From her modest beginnings as a vaudeville performer, Ms. Smith grew to be the nation's highest paid African American performer of the early 1920's. Her vibrance and creativity altered the music business and gave blues a more prominent role in American music and culture. Hattie McDaniel was a woman of many firsts: the first African American woman to sing on network radio in the United States, the first African American to win an Academy Award and the first African American to star in a title role on a television sitcom. Also from humble beginnings, Ms. McDaniel moved from the quiet nights of her home in Kansas to the bright lights of Hollywood. Beating out Eleanor Roosevelt's maid, Elizabeth McDuffie, for the role of Mammy in ``Gone With the Wind,'' Ms. McDaniel took a small role and created a character so memorable that she conquered the hearts of audiences world-wide. These women are just a small sample of the many women of color who have contributed to the arts and helped shape our nation's culture. There is no question that they needed more than their tremendous talent to triumph during a time of institutionalized discrimination. They were models of courage, ingenuity, persistence, and character.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, standing before the House today is like deja vu. Two years ago, as the ranking minority member of the Committee on Government Reform, I argued that the House should reject the committee funding resolution because the majority allocated only 25 percent of the budget of the Committee on Government Reform to the minority. I could make virtually the same statement today. The work of the Committee on Government Reform last Congress was extraordinarily partisan. The committee's campaign finance investigation was widely acknowledged to be one of the most unfair, abusive and wasteful investigations since the McCarthy hearings, and the most expensive congressional investigation in history. As described by Norman Ornstein, a congressional expert at the American Enterprise Institute, and I am quoting him, the Burton investigation is going to be remembered as a case study in how not to do a congressional investigation. At the outset of this Congress I hoped that things would have changed. In early January I wrote the gentleman from Indiana (Chairman Burton) and asked for three things: Fair rules for issuing subpoenas; fair subcommittee ratios; and a fair budget. Unfortunately, the majority rejected each of these requests. The committee adopted rules that once again allowed the chairman to issue subpoenas unilaterally with no opportunity for the minority to appeal his decision to the full committee. The committee then adopted subcommittee ratios that once again gave the minority far fewer seats than we were entitled to, and today the majority is proposing another unfair budget. The majority falsely claims that it is substantially increasing minority funding over the last Congress, but that is just an accounting gimmick. As this chart here indicates, the indisputable fact is that the committee Democrats are being allocated only 25.9 percent of the committee's budget, an increase of less than 1 percent over the last Congress, less than 1 percent. It was 25 percent in the previous Congress; 25 percent in the Congress before that. In the year 2000, Democrats will receive 25.9 percent of the committee's budget. That is not reasonable progress toward the third by anyone's definition. It is not the 33 percent of the budget the majority adopted as House policy. I urge my colleagues to vote against this partisan and unfair resolution.