Henry Waxman

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, as all of my colleagues know, this is the time of year when special interests come out in force to take advantage of our busy schedule. They try to slip last-minute riders into conference reports and sneak lucrative patent extensions into crucial appropriations bills. If history is any guide, a number of pharmaceutical companies are at the very head of this unsavory pack. You may recall that, in the dead of night, someone smuggled a drug patent extension into the conference report of the 1997 Kennedy- Kassebaum Health Care Reform Act. Neither Senator Kennedy nor Senator Kassebaum were informed of this corporate giveaway. Only public protest prevented the drug company from scoring a multimillion dollar coup at the expense of consumers. It is the widespread rumors about a similar effort that have brought me here. I want to alert my colleagues to the efforts of Schering- Plough to sneak a backdoor patent extension onto the continuing resolution. 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. Last year, 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. In 1996, Schering tried unsuccessfully to attach Claritin 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. Schering's proposal is a terrible deal for consumers. It would require the Patent Office to adjudicate patent extensions for drug companies who have experienced regulatory delays at FDA. In reality, it is a backdoor opportunity for companies to undercut the scientific judgment of the FDA and its expert advisory committees. What Schering calls ``regulatory delay'' is the time needed by our public health agencies to ensure drug safety and efficacy. Often, a company will cause its own delays through miscalculations, complications in its research and new questions about its products. Schering claims that the approval of Claritin was subject to regulatory delay. The company never mentions that its delay resulted from the unexpected discovery that Claritin might cause cancer. Mr. Speaker, putting the Patent Office in the position of trying to second guess the FDA and its expert advisors on Claritin's possible carcinogenicity would be like having the IRS deciding which research proposals should be funded by NIH. This proposal would also burden the Patent Office with meritless cases like Claritin. The Patent Office has limited resources and crucial responsibilities. It does not have time to coddle companies like Schering when patents for breakthrough technology are awaiting approval. Even worse, this proposal would cost taxpayers millions of dollars in additional health care spending for Medicaid, Veterans health programs, the Defense Department and Public and Indian Health Services. Private insurers and HMOs will have to pay higher prices for drugs like Claritin. And ordinary consumers, especially older Americans, will have to pay much more out of pocket for their medicines. Let me make a final point about this proposal. I am the coauthor of the 1984 Waxman-Hatch Act. The Act grants patent extensions to drug companies for the patent time expended obtaining FDA approval. One of the points of the 1984 Act was to stop companies like Schering from lobbying Congress for patent extensions. It has been very successful, with the exception of rogue companies like Schering. In fact, 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. Lobbying efforts like Schering's are bad for the consumer. They also do harm to the 1984 Act, which strikes a balance between promoting innovation and ensuring that consumers have timely access to affordable medicines. Senator Hatch and I have publicly emphasized that revisions to the 1984 Act be made in a careful, deliberative process to preserve that balance. Dropping the Schering proposal onto the CR without notice, without committee proceedings, and without publicity is the exact opposite of what we meant. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose Schering-Plough's proposal, wherever it should appear in these final days of the session. It would cost taxpayers millions, hurt consumer choice, distract the Patent Office, undercut the FDA and do violence to the need for committees of jurisdiction to deliberate carefully over these important issues.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, it was an honor to know Tom Bradley and we are all saddened by his death. People wouldn't, by any stretch of the imagination, think of Tom Bradley as a revolutionary. He was soft-spoken. He was a conciliator. He didn't often show his emotion. And, while he labored hard, he always did so quietly and behind the scenes. He was a gentleman in every sense of the word. No other single person, however, did more than Tom Bradley to break with the past and redefine the promise of the future. Tom's own life marked a string of firsts. He attended Polytechnic High School in Los Angeles--a majority white school--where he was the first elected black president of Poly's Boys League; he was the first black student indicted into Ephebians, a national honor society; and he was the captain of his school's track team. When Tom joined the Los Angeles Police Department in 1940, there were 100 blacks on a force of 4000. When he retired in 1961, he was a lieutenant, the highest rank of any black officer on the force. Tom was the first black person elected to the Los Angeles City Council and he was Los Angeles' first black mayor. The truth is I could spend the next hour reciting a list of barriers that Tom broke down. But recognizing that he was a pioneer only tells half the story. His achievements once those barriers were broken tell the rest of it. Tom served as mayor of Los Angeles for five terms during twenty years of tremendous economic growth, rapid change, and flourishing diversity. Tom was a terrific mayor and uniquely suited to those times. He was a consensus builder. He never practiced the politics of division. Under his stewardship, Los Angeles became the financial capital of the West Coast. It became a city that valued its multiethnic people and nurtured their entry into the middle class. Tom was the son of a sharecropper and the grandson of a slave. He experienced the hard existence of the least fortunate of our society in the early twentieth century. From those humble beginnings, he rose to become a leader of one of the most dynamic and prosperous cities of our nation. His story is uniquely American. I want to express my condolences to Tom's widow, Ethel, and his daughters, Phyllis and Lorraine, during this very sorrowful time.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, it has been an honor to serve in the House of Representatives with Esteban Torres, who is retiring as a Member of Congress after sixteen years. Esteban's legislative achievements stand out because they address the concerns of average Americans who don't have the clout in Washington to make themselves heard. When concerns were raised that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) would degrade the quality of life on the Mexican/American border and take jobs from lower-income working Americans, Esteban worked hard to find a solution. He sponsored an innovative proposal that led to the creation of the North American Development Bank (NADBank), a binational institution that provides loans to improve the environment along the border and to create jobs for Americans adversely affected by NAFTA. Esteban has long devoted himself to measures that would strengthen environmental protections. He led the fight to address the problem of groundwater pollution in the San Gabriel Basin and worked to craft a widely supported agreement to clean it up. He worked to close to toxic chemical dump in West Covina. And, he has been the champion of legislation to recycle used oil, tires, and batteries. When he led the effort for the World Cup commemorative coin, Esteban obtained an additional public benefit by ensuring that ten percent of the proceeds be set aside for scholarships for Latino students. And, when he was a member of the Banking Committee, he sponsored the Truth- In-Savings legislation that give consumers the right to information in readable language about banks' interest rates, yields, and fees. Esteban also has a strong record on international human rights. He sponsored the Cuban Humanitarian Trade Act, which recognizes the failure of U.S. policy toward Cuba and would exempt food, medicine, and medical supplies from the Cuban trade embargo. Esteban's efforts in Congress have been guided by firm principles and compassion. It has been a privilege to serve with him and I wish him and his family all the best as he begins this new phase in his life.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to bring to my colleagues' attention the wise words spoken by Rabbi Steven Carr Reuben on Rosh Hashana. Lashon Ha-Ha--The Power of the Tongue--Rosh Hashana 5759/1998 (By Rabbi Steven Carr Reuben) I think I agonized these past few weeks over tonight's sermon more than anything in years. I ran a HH Sermon Seminar for the So. Cal. Board of Rabbis this year--my advice to all of them 3 weeks ago was--``Don't talk about it.'' Since then almost daily someone has called or come up to me and asked, ``What do I tell my kids, Rabbi?'' ``Where are they supposed to look for moral leadership?'' Like most of you my mind has been on information overload this week. I felt like the woman who once wrote about an overwhelming day in her life. She said, ``The washing machine broke down, the telephone kept ringing incessantly, the mail carrier brought a bill I had to no money to pay. Almost to the breaking point, I lifted my one-year-old into his highchair, leaned my head against the tray, and began to cry. Without a word, my tiny son took his pacifier out of his mouth . . . and stuck it in mine!'' I could have used that pacifier all week, as I kept thinking about something Rabbi Milton Steinberg, one of the great rabbis of the 20th century once said--``When I was young, I admired clever people. Now that I am older, I admire kind people.'' This has certainly not been a kind week--not for Ms. Lewinsky; not for the President or his wife or his child, not for the country; not for anyone. In fact, in many ways it seems to have brought out the worst of human nature--meanness of spirit, vindictiveness, derision, humiliation. ``The worst'' because as British philosopher Bertrand Russell once noted, ``Nobody ever gossips about other people's secret virtues.'' Parents tell me everyday that they are loath to open a newspaper, listen to the radio or watch the television for fear of what they might find. We have become victims of our own technological wizardry--caught up a whirlwind of sex, lies and videotape. A media feeding frenzy to have everything about everyone sent everywhere, instantly--it is the information age run amuck. But I see this communal trauma we are going through as one of our nation's great ``teachable moments.'' There are so many truly important lessons that we can learn and teach our children if we are open and willing. Lesson number one might be this: ``Just because we can, doesn't mean we should.'' I fear we are becoming a society without boundaries, without restraint, without respect, without a public moral sense of decency, or compassion or human dignity. It's as if our hierarchy of values has been turned on its head--as if ``truth'' for its own sake is the highest value in life. And so on this Jewish New Year it is worth remembering, that the 4,000 years of Jewish ethical tradition teach something quite different. For Judaism the highest value is not truth, it is the sanctity and dignity of human life itself. We ground our values in the commitment that human life is sacred--that the Torah teaches every human being is created in the divine image, with a spark of the divine within. You see, in Judaism the way we fulfill our destiny as human beings, is to find ways of getting that divine light within each of us to shine brighter and brighter because of what we do or what we say. And every time we do or say anything that diminishes that inner light in another human being, by trashing their image or reputation in the world, even if what we are saying is true, we are committing one of Judaism's gravest sins. My God, look at the society we seem to have created--it's the tabloidization of America, where even Heraldo Rivera can't compete anymore with the daily sleaze of Jerry Springer, one of the most popular shows on television; and the Kings of the radio waves are shock jocks who specialize in personal attacks and public humiliation. That is why I so desperately want us to seize this moment as an opportunity to remember who we are--who we can be--who we must be. To remember perhaps the core, fundamental ethical value of the Torah--for we have forgotten to teach our children and remind ourselves the all-important truth that what we say really matters. It is written simply and powerfully in the book of Proverbs: ``Death and life are in the power of the tongue.'' Do you realize that in all of the Talmud, in all of Jewish ethics after taking a life, the most serious sin in our entire tradition is the public humiliation of another human being? (2 X) It is what the Talmud calls, LASHON HARA--THE EVIL TONGUE, and it includes not only gossip and slander, but all words that are hurtful--any speech that damages the reputation or lowers the status of another. And it's the most widespread sin there is. In a remarkable insight into the human psyche the Talmud teaches, ``Many are guilty of stealing, fewer are guilty of sexual misconduct, but everyone commits the sin of slander; of Lashon Hara to some degree almost every day.'' That's why Rabbi Yosi ben Zimra created a fictional lecture which God delivers to our tongues: ``What else could I have done to rein you in, to control you?'' God begs the tongue. ``Though all other human limbs stand up, you lie flat.'' Though all other limbs are external and visible, I hid you inside the body, I enclosed you behind two walls, one of bone and one of flesh and even so no matter I do you still do more damage than anything else I have ever created.'' Today is Yom Hazikaron the Day to Remember--remember what? Remember who we are. Remember that we think we are human beings having a spiritual experience, when we are really spiritual beings having a human experience. Do you know that Jewish law commands us not to allow the body of even a convicted murderer to hang on the gallows over night? This Mitzvah is dramatized in a famous Midrash which tells the story of twins--one who becomes the King and the other becomes a thief and murderer. The thief is caught, convicted, sentenced to death and hanged in the Town Square. And as the body hangs limp for all to see, strangers who pass by not knowing what happened look at it and what do they think? The King is hanging from the gallows. For the Rabbis, God is the King--and we are God's twins. That is why even the worst human being; one who sheds another's blood is accorded dignity and respect. Because every one of us from the lowest to the highest has within the same Divine light. For Jewish wisdom knew that even the truth can be evil-- lashon hara--if it is used to cause pain, disgrace and humiliation. Jewish ethics teach us that just because something is true, doesn't mean we must say it--it is the intention of our words that matter most. We have lost our moral balance--from political sound-byte attack ads to Hard Copy to what passes for the nightly news-- we have cheapened life itself; nothing is private, nothing is sacred. ``Death and life are in the power of the tongue.'' Remember Richard Jewell who helped save lives when the bomb went off in the Olympic Park in Atlanta? His life went from Hero to horror overnight--because we have lost the sense of boundaries, and knowing itself has become our highest value regardless of who is hurt as a result. You probably don't remember Oliver Sipple. He was the ex- Marine who became a hero overnight by saving then President Ford's life when he grabbed the arm of Sarah Jane Moore as she pointed a gun at the President. Her aim was deflected and the bullet went astray. Reporters came to interview him and he had only one request: ``Don't publish anything about me.'' Right! Tell that to an investigative reporter. Within days the LA Times, followed by dozens of other papers trumpeted the news that Sipple was active in gay causes in San Francisco. A reporter in Detroit confronted his mother, who knew nothing about his homosexuality, with the news. She was stunned, and stopped speaking to her son. When she died four years later, his father informed Sipple that he wouldn't be welcome at her funeral. Devastated, he began to drink heavily, and a few years later was found in his apartment--dead at age forty-seven. ``Death and life are in the power of the tongue.'' This is what Jewish tradition calls, Avak Lashon Hara-- ``The Dust of the Evil Tongue''--and it is settling all around us. So when people asked me, ``What do I tell my kids?'' I say don't tell your kids, teach your kids. And what can we teach our children at this New Year--even knowing that tomorrow morning hour after hour of the President's taped testimony will be broadcast over the nation's airwaves? That the Talmud says ``You can kill a person only once, but when you humiliate him, you kill him many times over.'' This we can teach our children. What else can we teach our children? ``If you mess up it is tempting to tell a lie, but people will usually be much more angry about the lie than the original act itself. This we can teach our children. What else can we teach our children? In the end, growing up means the willingness to accept personal responsibility for our own actions. This we can teach our children. What else can we teach our children? We transgress in a moment; we regret for a lifetime. Repentance and forgiveness take work and time--sometimes the work of a lifetime. This we can teach our children. What else can we teach our children? It's not how many times you fall down that ultimately matters in life--it's how often you get up again that counts. This we can teach our children. Arrogance, jealousy, temptation are as old as time. From nearly every Biblical hero to our own lives. After all, how many of you can think of at least one episode in your life that would cause you great embarrassment were it to becomes known to everyone else here? This, too we can teach our children. And above all, don't look out there for moral heroes--to politics, or sports, musicians or actors or celebrities--You are your children's primary moral models, and you must be their moral heroes. So teach your children respect. Teach your children restraint. Teach your children by how you talk and the jokes you do or don't tell; the snickering or respectful tone of your voice, the dignity you extend to others. Teach your children that the highest value isn't always truth--it may in fact be kindness. One cold evening during the Holiday Season, a little boy about six or seven was standing out in front of a store window in New York City. The little boy had no shoes to speak of and his clothes were nothing more than rags. A young woman passing by saw the little boy and the condition he was in, so she took him by the hand and led him into the store. She bought him some shoes and warm clothes and told him she hoped he'd have a better holiday season now. The little boy looked up at her and asked, ``Are you God, Ma'am?'' She laughed and replied, ``No son, I guess I'm just one of God's children.'' And as the little boy turned to walk away, he smiled and said, ``I knew you had to be some relation.'' That's who we really are. It's Rosh Hashana, and a new year lies ahead. A New Year filled with infinite possibilities for change and growth, forgiveness and kindness and love. So teach your children the wisdom of Rabbi Nahman of Bratzlov who said, ``If you are not going to be any better tomorrow than you are today, than what need have you for tomorrow?''

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time. When the VA-HUD appropriations bill was passed by the House in July, it contained numerous provisions in the accompanying report that were intended to interfere with the implementation of our environmental laws. In the legislation now before us, I see that the conferees have improved most of these anti-environmental riders. However, there is still some potentially damaging language in the bill and I want to mention some of these specific provisions. The report urges EPA to start over in their efforts to clean up air pollution in our national parks. I understand this language was included by the Republicans at the request of coal-burning utilities in Colorado. In the mid 1970s, there was growing public concern regarding air pollution clouding the beautiful vistas of our national parks. As a result, Congress directed EPA to address the problem in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977. After a stalled effort, the program was improved and strengthened in 1990. Unfortunately, just as this program was finally beginning to be implemented, the program was stalled for 9 years by an anti-environmental rider attached to this year's highway bill. The language in the VA-HUD appropriations bill now adds insult to injury by urging EPA to start over and not encourage the States to even plan or think about addressing this serious issue. There is language in this bill which is intended to prevent the reduction of mercury emissions from power plants until after the turn of the century. There is language which is intended to slant implementation of our pesticide safety laws in favor of pesticide chemical companies at the risk of public health. Additionally, there is language designed to interfere with the dredging of PCB contaminated sediments in our rivers and our lakes. Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat comforted by the chairman's past assurances that this is all report language and is not binding on the agency. However, it is now up to Carol Browner, the Administrator of the EPA, to take the chairman at his word and to deal with or to ignore some of these harmful provisions. I am pleased that the bill before us is better than the one we passed through the House. I wanted to put in the Record some of my concerns.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I want to correct the Record. This bill was introduced a matter of weeks ago. There was no hearing on this legislation. The gentleman from New Hampshire said there was a hearing. There was no hearing on this legislation. There was a discussion among Members where I suggested to the chairman of the subcommittee that we have a hearing. The next week, there was several administrative agencies brought before the committee. The Coast Guard was not there. It was represented that the Coast Guard was there; they were not there. The Park Service was there. The GSA was there, but it was my understanding they said they could not endorse the bill. They wanted to do some further checking on the matter. The Democrats who were present allowed the bill to get out of the subcommittee with the idea that it was going to come to the full committee and then we would know whether there was a problem or not. Now, no one dredged out anything from the administration. They have come forward with their determination that the existing law allows a streamlined administrative procedure to deal with this very issue. It does not require an act of Congress, and they do not want to set a precedent where congressmen can just drop bills in, distribute property, and never have an opportunity for a hearing where concerned citizens might express their point of view. I have no disagreement or any knowledge about whether this land ought to be handled the way the gentleman from New Hampshire would like to handle it. But it is not, it seems to me, up to the Members of the House to decide this question when there is an administrative process to make that determination. I do think it is troubling that Members of Congress, without hearings, should come up with bills to settle these matters. A Member could go home and say, ``Look what I have done. I have got you this piece of land.'' Is that any different than, ``Look, I have got this government money to distribute for the interest of my constituents''? It seems to me the kind of thing that Members of Congress take credit for all the time, but it ought not to be handled in this slipshod manner. Any chairman of a subcommittee who cared about the substance would give a full opportunity for everyone to get input into it and know what we are doing before legislation moves forward. Any chairman of a subcommittee who wanted to give people a full opportunity to participate in the legislative process ought to have at least held up and let the full committee consider the legislation. I think that it is not illegitimate for the administration to give their views on this, whether Members agree with their views or not. I agree that they are expressing the fact that this would be a dangerous precedent, and for this reason I strongly urge Members to oppose the bill.

Mr. WAXMAN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I object to this bill on process because, it seems to me, that because of the expedience of time running out, we did not get the process. Because of the gentleman's concern about the time running out and the full committee not meeting, the bill was brought to the floor without meeting the commitment that we thought we had that we would have a full committee markup on the legislation. And not just to have a markup, but because in the meantime we would hear from the administration. Now, the administration has told us that on the substance this is not a good idea. It is a very dangerous precedent. And, besides, I am also informed, and I never wanted to become an expert in this area, but there is this administrative procedure where the people in New Hampshire could have gone and said that there are two parcels of land and they want both parcels for the cemetery. They could have gotten agreement through the administrative procedure to do that and then, at some later date, they would have to come up with another parcel to make up for the one parcel that was dedicated for park land that is now going to be used for cemetery land. If this bill were to pass, I fear that what the gentleman has done has created more bureaucratic confusion than what would happen if the people of New Hampshire went right through the established immediate procedures in the law, because they would have to go through a process that would take more time and would be more cumbersome.

Mr. WAXMAN. I yield to the gentleman from New Hampshire.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, our objection to this legislation has nothing to do with the politics of the full committee, the subcommittee, or the Democratic versus Republican parties. Our concern is that a bill went out of subcommittee with our understanding that between the time it went out of subcommittee and it was taken up in full committee we would find out more about it from the administrative agencies that were never brought in to testify before a hearing of the subcommittee. And it was with that understanding that the Democratic Members of the subcommittee did not ask for a rollcall vote but let it go on a voice vote.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is absolutely correct. This is the type of thing that should have been hashed out in a hearing, and if not in a hearing, a markup. But what happened with this legislation is that there was never a hearing. The meeting with some of these agencies was with the staff and not the Members. There was, we thought, an understanding that the subcommittee would report the bill out and we would have a chance to get full recommendations from these agencies before the bill went to the full committee, and then there was no full committee hearing. The bill is suddenly on the House floor. I guess there might have been some anticipation that there was going to be opposition. But whether that was the case or not, this is just not the way the legislative process should be conducted. If we allow a bill out of subcommittee on the understanding, as I hear it from the subcommittee chairman, that we would go to the full committee, and we would have a chance to look at our concerns and be able to raise them in the full committee, it just seems to me incumbent on all of us, in terms of comity and working with each other, not to run then to the floor, passing up the full committee, passing up all hearings, and then telling everybody this is a bill that is only a couple of acres.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. It is special legislation; as such, it treats Federal land as a new kind of ``pork'' for Congress to distribute. The administration opposes this bill because it would give away Federal land that is not excess to the government. This is a dangerous precedent to set, especially immediately before midterm elections. I am also concerned that the majority chose to bypass the full House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. This bill has never been the subject of a hearing. We thought this bill would be brought to the committee. We are disappointed that the committee has been sidestepped and that our concerns cannot be addressed by the full committee. The minority first learned of this bill less than 2 weeks ago. It was considered by the Subcommittee on Government Management, Information and Technology in markup just last Monday. I urged the subcommittee to hold a hearing on the bill and, at the very least, seek the administration's position on the bill. We now have the administration's position, and they are opposed to it. I have the statement of administrative position here, and I would like to quote from it: The administration opposes House passage of H.R. 4614 which would convey Federal land to the town of New Castle, New Hampshire. H.R. 4614 would convey Federal land, which has not been declared excess, in a manner inconsistent with the process established under the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 for the fair and efficient utilization and disposal of excess and surplus Federal property. The procedure by which the city could have pursued the matter, they did not require an act of Congress, they could have asked for an administrative procedure. Instead, they have come to the Congress and asked for this special legislation. I think it is a type of ``pork'' for the Congress of the United States to bypass the ordinary procedures for deciding how to deal with land. It creates a bad precedent. It has been assembled hastily, it has not been considered by the full committee, and finally and significantly, there are administrative alternatives for the town that better address its needs. Mr. Speaker, for that reason, I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I want to underscore the importance of this special order this afternoon in the House of Representatives, and the gentleman's leadership, and the leadership which the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen), the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson), and so many others have given to this very question. It is so unfair that our seniors are paying, on average, we have found, all across the country, twice as much for prescription drugs as those who are being treated in a more favorable light by the pharmaceutical manufacturers. This is an issue that affects American seniors all across this Nation. There is very little variation between what we have found in one part of this country as opposed to another. We see all over our seniors being asked to pay the most for these drugs. Of course, the reason they have to pay the most for drugs is that each senior goes individually to buy drugs. They do not have anybody acting on their behalf the way that the veterans have through the Veterans Administration, or the people in managed care plans have, when those managed care plans step in and negotiate a better price for all of their members who have drug coverage, or what we have even done for Medicaid recipients who have prescription drug coverage. On Medicare, our Medicare beneficiaries do not have prescription drug coverage under Medicare. I wish they did. It is a logical thing for them to have that coverage. Medicare covers doctor bills, hospital bills, all sorts of other services, medical services. But when it comes to prescription drugs that they use on an outpatient basis, Medicare will not cover it. Each person has to come in individually and pay the price. The manufacturers of these drugs have found that in order to keep their profits up when they have to give a discount to others, they just raise the price higher for individual seniors, often elderly women. Most people on Medicare are women, and they are the ones who have to pay that price. We have heard the story today, and all Members of Congress have heard it from our constituents, how the elderly are forced to choose between paying their rent, their food bill, their heating bill, or their pharmaceutical costs. A lot of people go without taking their drugs, or try to take them every other day, or cut the drugs in half and make them last longer. Many of them end up in hospitals because they get sicker as a result of not taking the pharmaceuticals that can keep them healthy. Then the government pays a lot more money under Medicare for their hospital bills. It does not make sense, and I think that the approach that the gentleman has taken and others have taken in trying to address this problem is very, very important. The approach that is taken in the legislation is to say that we are going to insist as a function of government that seniors not be disadvantaged when they buy drugs and that we will use the buying power of the Federal Government to make sure they get that preferred price as well as other citizens. The way that this has been portrayed here today with the charts, with the demonstration of just showing right hand to left hand the same pharmaceuticals, but someone is left holding the bag, and it is usually our most vulnerable people, our seniors who do not want to be on welfare. Most of them are not on welfare. They have played by the rules. They paid throughout their working years for the Medicare program. When they need that program and are relying on it, we should not leave them adrift when it comes to high pharmaceutical prices. We ought to be there to protect them. If we are not going to cover drugs, at least we ought to assure them that, when they buy those pharmaceuticals, they are going to pay a preferred price and not an unfair price. I want to commend the gentleman. I think this is an important opportunity on the House floor to bring this issue home to people. It is the kind of issue people care about. So often here in Washington we are talking about things that I do not think most Americans think affect their lives in any way. But this issue affects every senior and their family members in every part of this country. This is the kind of thing we ought to be dealing with, just like we should be dealing with the protections for people who are in HMOs or managed care to be sure that they are not taken advantage of, that they have their rights protected as consumers. We ought to be addressing issues like this. We have only got 1 week left here in the Congress. We are going to go home at the end of this next week without passing a Patients' Bill of Rights for managed care, without addressing this pharmaceutical pricing issue, without doing anything about protecting our kids from being the subject of the tobacco companies' campaigns to get them to smoke at 12 and 13 years of age, without probably the most important thing, passing legislation to reform our campaign finance system, which, without the reform in that area, leads to the inordinate power of special interest groups like the tobacco companies, like the insurance companies, and like the pharmaceutical manufacturers. I commend the gentleman for his leadership and for taking this opportunity on the House floor for many of us to speak on the issue.

Mr. WAXMAN. Absolutely.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I think that is absolutely right. If we simply want to look at it as a dollar and cents issue, I think the case can be made that we would save money if we have protected the elderly from the high cost of prescription drugs and not have to pay that amount in hospital care costs for them. But even without just looking at it from a dollar point of view from a Federal Government standpoint, just from a common sense humanitarian point of view, how can we say to the elderly that we are going to protect them from being wiped out financially when health care costs hit them after they paid into this Medicare program during their working years, and we leave them vulnerable to such high out-of-pocket costs for their prescription drugs that they will not be able to afford their drugs or other necessities. Some people cannot even afford to pay their Medicare Part B premium. They are like people who are not even in Medicare Part B because of the high cost of that, or they cannot go out and buy supplemental insurance because of the cost of that added onto everything else they have to pay for. So we ought to recognize that, while we have done a great job in this country reducing the poverty levels of elderly people which used to be the single largest group under the poverty line, we still have a lot of people who are having difficulties especially when they have to pay for those high cost drugs.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, one of the short sides of this in the way that we approach these problems is we look at the cost of hospital care under Medicare, which is extraordinarily high, and we do not connect it to the fact that we have caused those costs to be incurred because we have not done anything to protect the elderly from the high cost of medications and the fact that many of them will go without the medications, forcing them to get sick and then to use more expensive care.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, we are going to pay for it. The country is going to pay for it. The elderly is going to pay for it. It is a cost of the Medicare program. When we look at the Federal Government expenditures, what we spend in Medicare is one of our very largest expenditures. It is not just from taxpayers, it is partly paid for by the premiums that the elderly pay for their Medicare. It is paid for also by the working people of this country who pay into the Medicare system in hopes that they will have it available to them when they need it when they become eligible because of their age to take out that Medicare policy.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, it is with a sense of sadness that I speak today because I am really sorry to see the gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio) leave this institution. I also rise with a great deal of appreciation for the work that he has done in his career in public service. We first met each other when Vic was a staffer and I was a member of the State Assembly in California. Later he was elected to the Assembly, we served as colleagues there and for the past 20 years here. I think the gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio) is in the category of being someone who is absolutely indispensable. He is the Member who will always work hard, doing more than his fair share of the work. He will take on issues that others avoid, and he will be more interested in making sure that, at the end of the day, we have an accomplishment than the fact that he might get a moment or two on the national television network coverage. The gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio) is the kind of person that reminds us that we should be proud of those who seek a career in public service. He is a politician and he is a legislator, and in both of those areas he is a professional. This institution is going to miss him enormously. I know that all of us have seen the deterioration of civility in this House, the People's House. We have differences of opinion. But we need Members like the gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio) who can express the differences in a way that will look for accommodations, ways to build bridges to each other and ways to reach a point where we can have accomplishments. When we think about the debates that we have had in politics in the last couple of years where people have prided themselves on inexperience, on not knowing how the system worked, on not being insiders, of not being professional politicians, the gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio) stands out as a reason why they are wrong. He is a leader, he is an insider, he is respected, he is a pro. I want to say to him he has been a great friend to me and Janet, and I want to wish Vic and Judy all the very best.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, whatever its merits, the consideration of this bill at this time constitutes a gross dereliction of the care and due diligence this House owes to the consideration of our laws. The bill was introduced on Friday. It was referred to six committees for hearings and deliberations. But here it is, after just three working days, up for a vote by the full House. This bill is badly in need of scrutiny by the committees of jurisdiction. Let me give you an example of a very troubling, coercive provision. The Teen Drivers incentive program is intended to promote the voluntary drug testing of applicants for drivers licenses. But there is nothing voluntary about having to choose between taking the test or having the State inform your insurance company that you've refused to take the test. There is no question the insurance company will raise the rates on anyone--whether an adult or minor, drug user or drug-free citizen--who refuses to take a drug test. This is fundamental question of civil liberties. There are ample and leigitmate reasons why a citizen with no history of illicit drug use and who constitutes no threat to public safety, might wish to decline a drug test. If this provision were stricken, the States would still be free to develop model programs, with or without a notification requirements. If a State desires such a requirement, so be it. But we in Congress should not dictate the approach taken by the several States in such a sensitive and vital area of civil liberties and personal privacy. We should allow the States to develop programs without dictating only one model designees in Washington as if one size fits all. Mr. Speaker, I also want to give another example of why this bill should be sent back to the committees of jurisdiction, consistent with the regular order. The original Title II of his bill was a multi-billion dollar boondoggle. Any company which developed a new anti-addiction drug would receive an additional 6 months of market exclusivity on any drug of its choice. That is an unbelievable gift to the drug industry. I can understand wanting to provide modest incentives for a worthy cause. But H.R. 4550 would have sucked literally billions of dollars out of the pockets of American consumers and taxpayers. It would have given a blank check to the drug industry. At the last minute, Title II was changed by a manager's amendment. A study was substituted--a study, I might note, that duplicates two studies which are already done. Was the provision struck because people caught it in time and threatened to expose it for the boondoggle it was? I don't know. But I do know this is the wrong way to develop legislation. I support the War on Drugs and I support programs which end illicit drug use. But I cannot support legislation developed in this manner.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. I thank the gentleman very much for yielding this time to me. Mr. Speaker, this resolution is just another effort by the Republican leadership to substitute slogans for substance. Time after time the leadership has ignored the facts and slapped down the work of States and public health experts because it serves the Republican leadership's political interests, as they see it any way. First, they are going to take a slap tomorrow at the State of Oregon, and they want to ban here at the federal level, any funding or any attempt to Oregon to have a law for assisted suicide. Yet in spite of this ban, the Washington Post reported last April that Oregon's Death with Dignity Act has profoundly improved the end of life care given the terminally-ill patients. Now the House also taken a swap at States and cities across the country this spring by banning Federal funding of needle exchange. Needle exchange is preventing AIDS and saving lives in dozens of American cities in over 20 States. The Surgeon General, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Institutes for Health, the American Medical Association all concluded that needle exchanges save lives, prevent AIDS and do not encourage drug use. But do not confuse the Republican leadership with the facts; they are not interested. They want Americans to believe that the government was going to install needle vending machines next to coke machines across the country. They want everybody to know that the greatest wisdom in the country is here in Washington, nowhere else in the Nation. Now the House leadership wants to take a slap at California. The voters of California supported Proposition 215. They support doctors prescribing or recommending marijuana for medical uses. The voters of California have spoken on this issue, and their judgment deserves the respect from this House. Just as importantly, the National Institutes of Health is calling for more research on medical uses of marijuana, the National Academy of Sciences is due to report on this issue in the next few months, and the AMA, California Nurses Association, California Academy of Family Physicians, the Los Angeles County AIDS Commission all support Proposition 215. But the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) and the rest of the Republican leadership do not care. They do not want to wait for a report that will give them the facts. They want to deprive seriously ill patients of potential therapies because they have a political agenda. They think we should just say no to sick and dying patients because it looks like we are getting tough on illegal drugs. Mr. Speaker, this resolution is not about crime, it is not about legalizing drugs, it is not about legalizing marijuana. This is about letting doctors care for dying patients in the best way possible. This is about letting scientific research proceed unhindered by politics. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution, and I want to put into the Record a statement from the New England Journal of Medicine. It is an editorial endorsing the physician freedom to determine the medical uses of marijuana. I urge that we oppose this resolution which is strictly here for political purposes, and it should not be dignified with our votes because it deprives the States and the people from making a decision in the local areas for their own determination.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, as Congress considers the 1999 Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the successful international humanitarian programs of an organization based in Los Angeles. The International Medical Corps (IMC) was founded in 1984 by a group of volunteer physicians and nurses. Its mission is to save lives, relieve suffering and improve the quality of life through health interventions in areas where few organizations dare to serve. IMC offers medical assistance in areas at high risk, and offers medical training to rehabilitate devastated health care systems and help them become self-reliant. Since 1984, IMC has worked in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Angola, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Burundi, Somalia, and the Sudan. I would like to highlight the successes of IMC's programs in Bosnia and Sudan. In 1994, IMC responded to dangerously low child immunization levels in Bosnia--a result of the constraints of the long civil conflict. Children were unprotected against measles, diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, childhood tuberculosis and polio: illnesses which account for the highest mortality rate worldwide among unvaccinated children under five years old. IMC's accelerated immunization program has resulted in the application of over one million doses of vaccine in Bosnia since 1994, and has raised the vaccination rate from 30% coverage to over 90% coverage in the program areas. The program, funded by the Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA), has reduced illness and saved the lives of thousands of children, and set a standard widely accepted for use in war torn areas where immunization rates need to be increased. In a real example of helping others help themselves, IMC established an emergency medical technician training program and emergency medicine outreach projects in Bosnia. IMC helped establish the first Western- style emergency department in the country at Zenica Hospital, and provides training in emergency medicine to Bosnian physicians and nurses. A partnership project in South Sudan between IMC and CARE is aimed at controlling and eradicating an epidemic of African trypanosomiasis, more commonly known as Sleeping Sickness, a disease which is 100% fatal unless treated. Approximately 60,000 people in Tambura and Yambio counties are at risk of infection, and as many as 9,000-12,000 are in need of immediate treatment. The project involves screening the entire populations of both counties for the parasite. 99% of the population of Ezo Payam, the village which is the epicenter of the epidemic, has already been screened, and the infected population has been treated. The project has also identified and trained 99 local health workers to perform essential services related to Sleeping Sickness, and will continue to screen and provide treatment to the remaining populations of Tambura and Yambio counties. The program is proving to be very successful in controlling the fatal disease, and its training of health professionals is rebuilding the area's indigenous health care system-- giving the Sudanese the capability to respond to future outbreaks rapidly and successfully. As this House considers funding for international humanitarian and development assistance in the foreign operations bill, remember the dedicated volunteers of the International Medical Corps, who work tirelessly to alleviate human suffering around the world.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, there is a lot we should do in order to reduce teen tobacco use and are obviously not doing it. This amendment is a step but I cannot tell if it is a step forward or a step back. It might result in fewer kids using tobacco. It might not. Overall, it is hard to see that this amendment will make much of a difference at all. It is the kind of a thing that a city council ought to deliberate on. One thing is certain, this approach is not balanced. The focus is misplaced. All the emphasis is on punishing children and none is on stopping the tobacco industry from preying on them. There is no evidence that this House is committed to protecting children from tobacco. Earlier this year, this House failed to provide the funds needed by the FDA for enforcement of laws prohibiting sale of tobacco to minors. Then we failed to pass comprehensive tobacco legislation. And, just a few weeks ago, a sting conducted by the American Lung Association revealed that 15-year-olds could buy cigarettes right here in the Capitol. On the House side of our Capitol, a 15-year-old girl was able to buy cigarettes every time she tried. Now, this Congress, which does not enforce current law in the Capitol, is telling the District of Columbia to adopt a new law to punish kids. They are not strengthening the laws against retailers, they are not enforcing existing laws against selling cigarettes to minors, they are not providing money for this unfunded mandate, they are not stopping tobacco company advertising, they are not changing the predatory behavior of the tobacco industry. In considering the impact of this amendment, do not delude yourself. Do not believe that simply passing a law that shifts responsibility to the young will make a real difference. We are the adults, presumably, in this body, and we have not taken our responsibilities.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I think it is appropriate for the committee of the Congress to do an investigation. I think it is important to get to the bottom of the issues at stake. I also think in theory it is sometimes appropriate to have deposition authority. But when you look how this authority has been abused by the Republican majority in this very Congress, I think you have to step back and ask whether this is a wise thing to do. If a committee is doing an investigation and they want to hear from a witness, bring a witness before the committee. If the witness will not come, subpoena the witness to come before the committee. Let members in an open session ask questions. But when you give deposition authority, it allows staff to bring in these people, behind closed doors, without the public even knowing what questions are being asked, and to abuse those people by making them hire attorneys, making them take time off from work, making them answer questions over and over and over again while the clock is ticking away and the costs are going up. I can tell Members that in the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, the staff has deposed 158 individuals. One-third of these people were compelled to give testimony under this threat of being held in contempt of Congress. Of these 158 depositions, 650 hours of testimony was taken. This is burdensome on people. It is a power that can and has been abused. We have come now to a point where it is simply a partisan fishing expedition. Of 158 witnesses, 156 have only been asked about Democratic fund-raising abuses while the committee has ignored substantial evidence of Republican campaign finance abuses. It becomes a partisan witch-hunt without any accountability to the American people. Accountability is important. When you are in an open session, you have to be accountable because the public can see what you are doing. But when it is a deposition, behind closed doors, there is too much power and that power can be abused.

Mr. WAXMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding time. I just want to point out the statement made by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) was completely irresponsible. No one has evidence to substantiate an accusation that the Administration sold out national security for campaign contributions. But we can substantiate the following: The Republicans have taken foreign money. We can substantiate the allegations that they have used illegal conduit payments, that money has been raised on government property. And today is the anniversary of the Trent Lott-Newt Gingrich $50 billion tax break for the tobacco companies snuck into a bill in the middle of the night after they received millions of dollars of campaign contributions from the tobacco industry. Why are we not investigating those issues? Because the Republican Congress is on a partisan witch-hunt. Do not do the same thing in this committee that we are seeing on the Burton committee: a one-sided, partisan witch-hunt where Republican abuses are ignored and Democrat abuses are blown out of all proportion, where the evidence does not lend credibility to the conclusions that are stated.

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. If my colleagues want to see an example of deposition authority and power being abused, look no further than what this Congress has done in the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. People are subpoenaed for depositions. They are forced to come against their will, hire lawyers at $300 an hour. I just want Members to know this is not theoretical. I have seen people have to go hire lawyers, take time off from work, prepare for these depositions, go through the anxiety of it all to be questioned by staff people. Just a couple days ago, we had a deposition in Los Angeles of one of these four people that we gave immunity to. It started at 1:00. It went until 8:30. This witness had almost nothing to say. We have had staff people ask witnesses about their personal lives, whether they have ever been tested for drug abuse. We had one witness in a deposition who was asked whether they could tell about a colleague, whether that colleague had done something illegal. This power can be abused. If there are hearings, at least the public will know what is asked. But if they are depositions, it is a staff person who can abuse that power, run roughshod over the rights of Americans by allowing them to, in closed door session, be asked any kind of question. Be wary whenever we give deposition authority. In some cases, it is appropriate, but we know it can be abused because we have seen it abused in this Congress already.

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?