Henry Waxman

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2977, the Federal Advisory Committee Act Amendments of 1997. I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks and to insert extraneous material into the Record. Recent federal court decisions have held that the National Academy of Sciences committees convened by federal agencies or Congress are subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The Federal Advisory Committee Act includes important measures that provide for public scrutiny of taxpayer-funded advisory committees. This Act, however, also imposes some procedures which may affect the independence of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Public Administration, an advisory body with a similar congressional charter to the National Academy of Sciences. The Federal Advisory Committee Act Amendments of 1997 strike a balance between the Academies' need for independence and the public's right to know about the advisors and procedures used to produce technical or policy advice for the government. These amendments require that the National Academy of Sciences appoint members without conflicts of interest--or else promptly disclose any unavoidable conflicts of interest to the public. The bill requires the Academy to make public the names and backgrounds of appointed committee members and creates a public comment period on these members. This public comment period must occur before committee members are finally appointed unless this is not practicable due to unusual time constraints. More meetings of the National Academy of Sciences will be made open to the public. If meetings are closed, the Academy must provide summaries of closed meetings to the public. The purpose of this provision is to provide a summary of the committee's deliberations, as well as a list of the committee members present and other matters determined by the Academy. The burden of insuring compliance with this legislation falls on the agencies. Agencies may not use the advice or recommendations provided by the Academy unless the procedural requirements set forth in the legislation have been followed by the Academy. A letter from the National Academy of Sciences clarifies an important technical issue relating to the use of the section 552(b) exceptions. Pursuant to my earlier unanimous consent request, I am inserting this letter in the record for publication. I urge my colleagues to adopt these amendments. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, November 9, 1997. Hon. Henry Waxman, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Waxman: I understand that some concerns have been raised concerning the use of the Section 552(b) exceptions as a basis for closing meetings provided in H.R. 2977. I wish to assure you that we subscribe fully to the goal of providing as much openness as possible in our work. In particular, we have no intention of using Section 552(b)(5), which deals with interagency memoranda, as a basis for closing meetings of Academy committees. In fact, it is the Academy's standard practice not to treat the type of material covered by Section 552(b)(5) as confidential input to any Academy deliberative process. This procedure insures that, in as much as possible, all the information that a committee uses to reach its conclusions is in the public records. Sincerely, Burce Alberts, President.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. WAXMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks and insert extraneous material.)

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, my congratulations to the gentleman from Virginia, Chairman Bliley, and the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Bilirakis, and our Democratic leaders, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Dingell, and the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Sherrod Brown, for producing the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act, which marks the successful end of a long 3-year process. I do not agree with some of the provisions in this bill, and I certainly would have written it differently, but I do support it today. I have no difficulty in supporting this legislation in large part because Chairman Bliley developed a process where all Members could participate, their views could be heard, and compromises could be reached. That kind of leadership is harder than some might think, because there is always pressure to be partisan and to get what one side and only one side wants. But if we are going to ever pass legislation into law, we have to recognize that it needs to be done on a bipartisan basis, and we have to have a process where we try to find common ground. I want to express my appreciation to our chairman for his leadership. I do have some reservations about the scope of many of the provisions in this legislation, particularly when it comes to the off-label promotion of drug and devices and third-party review of devices. But I want to point out that these are experimental provisions with sunsets which will allow us to critically reexamine their public health consequences. I applaud very strongly the reauthorization of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, which I was proud to have authored. It has been very successful and has allowed the FDA to speed the approval of drugs. There are a number of other provisions that we ought to take note of because they will directly benefit many patients. The requirement that drug companies report on their fulfillment of postmarketing studies fills an important gap in ensuring that critical information is reaching patients. The clinical data base will create new opportunities for patients to have greater access to comprehensive information about experimental therapies for serious and life-threatening diseases. It is my expectation that companies will work with the FDA in this enterprise in the same cooperative spirit in which it is enacted. The pediatric drug provision complements the FDA's recent regulations, and provides targeted incentives to improve the quality of health care for infants and children. Although I had reservations regarding the need to provide additional market exclusivity following the proposal of the regulations, there may still be limited situations in which this provision will encourage new clinical research to establish the safety and effectiveness of drugs for children. The provision requiring notice of discontinuance of the manufacture of life-saving drugs will ensure that patients receive time to find alternatives to medicines which will no longer be available. Instead of having to make medically sensitive decisions in haste, they will have 6 month's notice of a company's decision which could have tremendous implications for their health. Only a company with ``good cause'' will be permitted to end distribution or manufacture of its drug with less than 6 months notice, and in that event, the FDA will be able to determine the accuracy of this claim through records and documentation. The preemption of state laws regarding over-the-counter drugs and cosmetics has been resolved in an important compromise, under which the FDA is granted new enforcement authority over OTC drugs, the states are not preempted with respect to cosmetic safety, and preemption of cosmetic packaging and labeling only occurs where the FDA has taken action on specific and narrow questions. Most importantly, this provision does nothing to affect California's Proposition 65, an innovative state initiative that has helped reduce Californians' exposure to toxic hazards. This bill is a far cry from the proposals first floated three years ago which ran roughshod over consumer protections, supplanted our own product approvals with those of other countries, and weakened crucial statutory guarantees of safety, effectiveness and quality. The reason for this striking difference was the persistent skepticism of American consumers, who understood that it is the FDA which ensures that our food is safe and our medicines are safe and effective. This was made clear by the Patients' Coalition, which represents a hundred patient and consumer organizations and hundreds of thousands of patients. For three years, the Coalition has vigorously opposed extreme and controversial proposals for FDA deregulation. Today, this bill will receive bipartisan support because of the Coalition's unremitting vigilance and hard work in defeating efforts to weaken public health protections through FDA ``reforms.'' Given the extraordinary success of PDUFA, it makes sense for Congress to apply user fees to other areas of FDA jurisdiction, including medical devices. Enacting such fees, modeled on authorized, additive user fees under PDUFA and not upon the unauthorized ``sham'' fees frequently proposed by OMB, would bring similar efficiencies to the device approval process. Regrettably, this legislation does not do so. Instead, it enacts substantial new burdens on the FDA and, in particular, the Center for Devices and Radiological Health. I am deeply concerned that unrealistic deadlines and dozens of new mandates will slow the tremendous progress that has been made in speeding device approvals. It remains to be seen whether we will inadvertently divert limited staff, time and resources from the FDA's most important business--ensuring that our food supply is the safest in the world and that drugs and devices are safe and effective. I want to recognize the important work of the staffs on both sides of the aisle in developing this legislation. Without them it would have been impossible for us. I want to compliment as well those in the Senate who played such an active role, and all of my colleagues who have played an important role, in developing this legislation. I especially want to recognize the dedication and hard work of Kay Holcombe, our Commerce Committee staff, and the work of Howard Cohen, Eric Berger and Rodger Currie, the Majority committee staff, on this legislation. I would also emphasize the tireless work by the professionals at the FDA, including Bill Schultz, Peggy Dotzell and Diane Thompson, and the representatives of the Patients Coalition, Scott Sanders, Michael Langen, Maura Kealey and Tim Westmoreland. I complement Chairman Bliley and Congressman Dingell of the Commerce Committee, and Chairman Jeffords and Senator Kennedy of the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee, for their hard work and join my colleagues in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Berman and I ask our colleagues to join us in honoring Sylvia Levin for her remarkable achievements in voter registration. Sylvia became a deputy registrar with the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder's office in 1973 and has enthusiastically registered an estimated 35,000 voters since then. She has done more to increase voter participation than virtually anyone we know. For nearly 25 years, Sylvia has walked or bicycled to her post with an indefatigable determination to get as many eligible voters registered as possible. Nothing--not even a broken arm--has slowed the pace of her work. Sylvia's generous contribution to our community has received wide recognition. She has been honored for her work by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, nominated to the California Secretary of State's Voter Outreach Hall of Fame, and selected as an ``Unsung Hero'' by NBC News in Los Angeles. Our community owes a great debt of gratitude to Sylvia, and Mr. Berman and I ask our Congressional colleagues to join us in saluting her extraordinary contribution to our democratic system. We warmly congratulate her and wish her every happiness in the future.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to share with my colleagues the reasons I am unable to support H.R. 2621, the Reciprocal Trade Agreement Authorities Act of 1997. I support the principle of granting fast track authority to President Clinton to negotiate new trade agreements. Since our markets are the most open in the world, we have the most to gain by international agreements that pry open markets in countries with protectionist policies. In addition, we are uniquely positioned to forge relationships with our neighbors in this hemisphere that can help raise their standards of living and provide a significantly larger consumer base for our goods and services. Finally, since Mexico and Canada now enjoy special trade status with the United States under the North American Free Trade Agreement [NAFTA], it would seem illogical to deny a similar arrangement to other countries in the region. Unfortunately, however, the debate on trade policy no longer encompasses simple unfair dumping and tariff barriers. Trade negotiations now have a direct impact on our country's ability to maintain strong health and environmental standards because these standards can be challenged as trade barriers. The fast track language under H.R. 2621 is more regressive than that held by previous administrations and further restricts the authority of the President to negotiate trade agreements that include domestic and global environmental objectives. In addition, the language on food safety standards could reduce levels of risk to an international lowest common denominator. Third, the language would entitle companies to collect compensation if unjustified nontariff barriers restrict their activities. Since many environmental and health regulations have been interpreted as nontariff barriers to trade, governments could be required to compensate companies when public health and welfare regulations hinder capital flows. And finally, my longstanding concern that the broad rulemaking authority of international trade bodies is not instituted in a transparent, democratic manner has not been adequately addressed.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I want to join in expressing my shock and grief at the loss of our friend and colleague, Walter Capps. When we think of Walter Capps, the overwhelming aura of the man is the fundamental decency of him. In his life and in his death, he reminds us of those things that we value most; honesty, friendship, loyalty, civility, and an unwavering dedication to the public good. On a recent flight back to California we were sitting next to each other. We got on to the topic of religion, in which both of us having a great deal of interest in it. It was right before the Jewish holidays. We were talking about how important it is for people to know they have control over themselves and a higher power willing to help them along. I wished he had been here longer and been able to serve in the House of Representatives and his district for a longer time, but his legacy will live on in the lives of the thousands of students that he touched so deeply. I want to join my colleagues and the whole House of Representatives on this very sad day in expressing our condolences to his family. He will be sorely missed.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. It is with a great deal of regret that I come to the floor to oppose this bill. It has never been a partisan issue to fight against drugs in this country. But the Republican majority is politicizing this whole effort, and by this legislation today, the essence of it, it is a political one and it is a partisan one. Let me explain it on two grounds. First of all, there were no hearings in the committee on this legislation. There were not discussions with the administration to try to work out the bill that is now being presented to us. There were no processes where we could offer amendments on the floor today. This is being put on the suspension calendar to preclude any amendments to the bill. Second, this takes an agency that struggled to stay out of partisan politics and imposes upon it a standard which dooms it to failure, sets it up for ridicule during the election cycle in the year 2000. The bill has targets for drug reduction. I am not against targets. But the targets have to be realistic, and the targets in this legislation are doomed to failure because the targets are set so unrealistically. The bill requires the drug office to reduce adolescent drug use by 90 percent in 4 years. This chart that is before me shows that the largest reduction in teen use achieved in any 4-year period in the past was just 33 percent, not the 90 percent required in this bill. What happens if we do not get a 90 percent reduction? Nothing, except the Republicans in the election year for President can say, look at the failure to achieve a 90 percent reduction in drug use by kids. I would suppose that when we get to the tobacco issue my Republican colleague will support a 90 percent reduction in tobacco use in 4 years. There we have an easier time to deal with the problem, because we have a domestic manufacturer we can hold accountable. They control the distribution of their product. But I do not think anybody would say a 90 percent reduction is going to be achieved in illicit drugs in 4 years when it is so diffuse, it is so illegal, and with all the ramifications of distribution and use. I feel that what we have here is a bill that is so unrealistic that we are being set up on a partisan basis for a failure, and then to politicize the effort by trying to have the Republicans attack the Democrats for that failure, this has never happened in the Congress before. We have always had opposition to drugs, the illicit traffic in drugs, opposition to drug use on a bipartisan basis, after hearings, after discussions, after votes, where amendments were offered and agreed to. So I regret this, and urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation, and to insist that we go back to the regular order and have a realistic appraisal of what ought to be in a bipartisan effort to stamp out drug use.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Berman and I ask our colleagues to join us in congratulating Sooky Goldman, who is being honored by the Maple Counseling Center in Beverly Hills at their 25th Anniversary Ball. We are delighted to join Sooky's family and friends in recognizing her extraordinary charitable contributions. For the past 25 years, Sooky has been an exemplary leader in civic and philanthropic work. Her efforts have been recognized by more than 30 organizations ranging from the Beverly Hills Chamber of Commerce and YMCA to People Assisting the Homeless [PATH] and the Beverly Hills Police Department. In addition, Sooky created the William O. Douglas Classroom which has provided countless children from all over Los Angeles County the opportunity to experience the beauty of the Santa Monica mountains. She has a well-earned reputation for the tireless dedication and enthusiasm she brings to each project she undertakes. The Maple Counseling Center in Beverly Hills, which provides low fee mental health counseling for nearly 500 individuals each week, depends greatly on its committed supporters. Its work is particularly needed in the current climate of scarcity of funding for mental health services. As a principal founder of the center, Sooky has enriched and broadened its mission of offering comprehensive and high quality mental health services to those most in need. While Sooky is active in many causes, she has always placed a great importance on her family. She is fortunate to have a loving and supportive husband, Sam, three children, David, Joel and Kaye, and seven grandchildren. Despite her many commitments, Sooky has successfully managed to strike a balance between her public and private lives. Our community owes a great debt of gratitude to Sooky, and we ask our congressional colleagues to join us in saluting her for her singular achievements. We wish her every happiness and success in the future.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. The problem in the argument that was just advanced by the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn], is that even if we found that the use of a needle exchange program could reduce the incidence of AIDS, even if we found that there would not be more drug use, but in fact people might then be encouraged to go into programs to shake their addiction, we would prohibit, if this amendment were adopted, the use of Federal funds, by the decision of the local health people, to be used for a needle exchange program. We would be saying to the local people, at their discretion, that under no circumstances could they use this tool of a needle exchange program to prevent the spread of HIV. Now, I find it surprising that people who say we ought to use Federal funds at the discretion of local governments to take the opposite position when a needle exchange program is involved. But before local public health agencies can even decide to have a needle exchange program, the law says the Secretary of HHS must make two findings: The Secretary of Health and Human Services must find that a needle exchange reduces the spread of HIV and that the needle exchange program does not cause any increase in illegal drug use. The amendment before us would strike the ability of the Secretary to get this information and possibly make this finding. It would say under no circumstances, we do not care what the evidence may tell us, will we allow a needle exchange program at the discretion of the local public health officials. This is short-sighted. These are the kinds of short-sighted decisions that have kept us from approaching this AIDS epidemic with all the tools at our disposal. We should not let the decision be made by people in the Congress, who do not have the evidence but who have a lot of fears about how their views will be interpreted as to whether it is politically correct from the point of view of an opponent who may attack a distorted statement of those views. We ought to let these decisions be made on a scientific basis. Mr. Chairman, I urge defeat of the amendment.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to make a couple of points. First, taxpayers' dollars are going to be used to treat and pay a higher price for the care of patients who have AIDS than for a program to prevent HIV infection. We are trying to prevent the spread of AIDS. In order to prevent the spread of AIDS, the decision would reside at the local level whether they want to use a needle exchange program and use Federal funds. But before they can make such a decision, the Secretary must find that a needle exchange program reduces the spread of AIDS and the needle exchange does not cause any increase in illegal drug use. Her decision is not discretionary. If she makes that finding, we ought to then allow the local governments to make the decision to have a program, if they choose that option.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. What the amendment before us would do is, even if we found a needle exchange program could reduce the incidence of AIDS and if, when people came in for needle exchange, they were then encouraged to go into some program to cure their drug addiction, we would not be allowed to use funds for that purpose. That is what troubles me about this amendment.

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

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share with the Members of this House an article that appeared in the May 28, 1997, edition of the Cleveland Free Times concerning R.J. Reynolds' new strategy to lure young people to smoke Camel cigarettes. Given the retirement of Joe Camel, you may have thought that RJR was going to put an end to its promotional campaign aimed at our kids. But this Cleveland Free Times article discloses that R.J. Reynolds has developed a multimillion-dollar cigarette marketing campaign that targets bars and clubs frequented by youth and young adults. The goal of the program is to create an alternative marketing campaign and cigarette distribution network that operates under the radar. The campaign's targets include clubs--some of which are all-age concert clubs--and coffee houses. In exchange for cash, these bars and clubs give RJR exclusive rights to promote and sell Camel cigarettes in their establishment. As part of this promotion strategy, RJR-paid personnel mingle in the clubs to associate Camel cigarettes with what is cool. This insightful Cleveland Free Times article gives us fair warning that the tobacco industry will continue to use its own particular marketing genius to target our kids. This must be foremost in our mind as we begin to consider tobacco legislation and how we can best achieve our goal of reducing the deadly toll exacted by tobacco on the people of our country. Mr. Speaker, I ask that the full text of the article be printed in the Record so that my colleagues may have an opportunity to read about RJR's club marketing strategy. Camel Clubbing (By Mark Naymik) They do not wait in lines, show IDs, pay cover charges or purchase concert tickets to gain access to Cleveland's most popular bars and clubs. Once inside these venues, they are treated like low-budget celebrities, sometimes drawing a small crowd, several handshakes, and admiring nods from bar and club staff members. They are Cleveland's Camel Club kids, a small group of twenty-something clubgoers, including Twig, Sheff, Ma-Ma, Frankie Boy and Don Vega, as they are known. On most nights, these fashionable men and woman, each armed with a black canvas bag filled with Camel cigarettes, slip in and out of more than thirty area bars and clubs, from the Grog Shop, a small East side concert club, to the Phantasy, Lakewood's industrial-music dance club, to Ufia, Cleveland's largest gay club located on the West Side. Their job: blend in with the bar and club patrons, make friends with the bar staff and offer smokers free Camel cigarettes, R.J. Reynolds' premium brand. These Camel Club kids should not be compared to those candy-striped cigarette girls or miniskirt-clad alcohol peddlers, who attract a lot of attention but can be more annoying than effective in enticing bar patrons to try their product. Camel Club kids look like they belong. They are R.J. Reynolds' ambassadors of cool. And they are the front-line workers in a relatively new, multimillion-dollar cigarette marketing campaign known as the Camel Club Program. The goal of the Camel Club Program--beyond the obvious aim to increase sales of Camel cigarettes--is to create an altenative marketing campaign and cigarette distribution network, one that will not be affected by changing federal regulations or the scores of tobacco-related lawsuits clogging the courts. In other words, R.J. Reynolds wants to create a sales program that no longer relies on Joe Camel, obnoxious givaways and promotions, or even vending machines to move its smokes. Cleveland is only one of about a dozen cities in which R.J. Reynolds has begun to market its cigarettes through bars and clubs frequented by the twentysomething smoking crowd. A Free Times examination of the Camel Club Program in Cleveland reveals that R.J. Reynolds already has a near monopoly on the sale of cigarettes in most of Cleveland's bars and clubs that cater to young crowds. R.J. Reynolds created this monopoly by spending more than $120,000 on marketing agreements with club owners, who, in turn, give Camel Club kids exclusive access to their establishments. R.J. Reynolds also has targeted coffeehouses--havens for young smokers--and concert clubs that feature all-ages shows. Money For Nothing Several months ago, representatives from R.J. Reynolds and KBA Marketing, the young and progressive Chicago-based marketing firm that manages the Camel Club Program, came to Cleveland in search of trendy bars, restaurants, coffeehouses and concert clubs. About forty area nightspots made the scouting team's hit list. Next, KBA hired two Cleveland clubgoers with a knowledge of the city's nightlife scene and rented for them an office in the Bradley Building in Cleveland's Warehouse District. These clubgoers became KBA's Cleveland ``city managers.'' Their job was to contact club owners on the hit list and sign them to a one-year contract giving R.J. Reynolds exclusive rights to promote and sell Camel cigarettes in their establishments. By mid-February, the city managers easily signed thirty bars and clubs to the program. Bar and club owners would have been foolish not to sign. First, R.J. Reynolds offered them cash, between $1,000 and $18,000, depending on the club's size and traffic flow. For instance, the Drip Stick, a sleepy coffeehouse in the Warehouse District, received $1,000, while the Odeon, a concert club that features local and national rock and alternative acts, received $17,800, according to club industry insiders. R.J. Reynolds puts no restrictions on how the money can be used. On top of the cash, R.J. Reynolds agrees to supply the bar owners with Camel beverage napkins, ashtrays, personalized matchbooks and bar paraphernalia like neon lights, a marketing tactic similar to promotions traditionally done with beer and liquor products through local distributors. R.J. Reynolds also buys regular full-page advertisements in an entertainment publication in each city to collectively promote the clubs and helps in the printing of expensive glossy flyers featuring their concerts and special events. After the city managers signed the Cleveland bar and club owners to a contract, they arranged a meeting with staff members of each venue to outline what they would get out of the program. Every bar or club staff member who smokes receives free Camel cigarettes, usually a couple of packs, each time a Camel Club kid visits. The staff receives Camel promotional items like Zippo lighters, MagLite flashlights, T-shirts and hats. In return, R.J. Reynolds expects these bar staffers to promote Camel cigarettes by smoking Camel products while they work, and by displaying individual Camel cigarettes behind the bar. ``You notice more people asking to purchase cigarettes from you, increasing your tips.'' the city managers are supposed to tell the bar staff at their orientation meeting, according to KBA marketing materials. Death Of Vending Machines Another goal of the Camel Club Program is the elimination of vending machines, which display competitors' cigarettes, such as Philip Morris' Marlboro brands. To do this, KBA's city managers encourage bar and club owners to discontinue selling cigarettes in vending machines, and instead, exclusively sell Camel cigarettes displayed in small lighted kiosks placed behind their bars. Nearly all of the bars and clubs in the program have placed Camel kiosks, which hold forty packs of cigarettes, behind their bars. Here, too, R.J. Reynolds' sales pitch was hard to refuse: Eliminate the cigarette and vending machine distributors--the middle men-- and pocket more cash. Using vending machines, bars and clubs earn roughly between 25 and fifty cents on a pack of cigarettes that retails in the machine for about $2.75. R.J. Reynolds charges the clubs $1.52 per pack. So clubs that sign on with R.J. Reynolds can earn 97.5 percent profit on a pack of cigarettes that retails for $3 behind the bar. That's $60 profit every time they empty a kiosk. R.J. Reynolds also offers better service than traditional vendors. The Camel Club kids are on call to service the kiosk at all hours. If, for example, the club runs out of cigarettes in the middle of a concert, the bar manager can call one of the club kids, who will deliver fresh packs immediately. If a bar owner has a pre-existing contract with other cigarette companies and vending machine distributors, R.J. Reynolds expects the bar's owner to request from the vending machine operator that it ``convert the top 11 columns'' of the machine to Camel brands. New FDA regulations that will take effect later this summer prohibit all bars, clubs and restaurants that serve patrons under 21 from selling cigarettes in vending machines. By getting club owners to agree now to sell Camel exclusively, R.J. Reynolds is effectively locking out other cigarette makers from entering the bar when the regulations take effect. The ``Under the Radar Approach'' KBA launched the Camel Club Program in late 1994 in Chicago, and quickly introduced it into New York, Dallas and Los Angeles. The Camel Club Program's style has a lot to do with KBA and its founder, Kevin Berg, a former club owner. Berg does not hire ``suit and tie'' corporate types; he hires men and women who have nightclub experience and who are on the cutting-edge of fashion and pop culture. People with such experience and style are easily accepted into the club scene and carry far more ``credibility'' than the often stiff corporate cigarette representative. Twig, for instance, on a recent visit to the Odeon concert club, wore thick, black-rim, retro-styled glasses, a leather coat that hung below his waist, wide-leg blue jeans, and red shoes. His demeanor was relaxed, as he made little effort to distribute the cigarettes. He gave a few packs of Camel cigarettes to Odeon staff, laughing with them as if he were an old fraternity buddy. He then took a seat for the show. During a recent visit to the Brillo Pad, a dimly lighted lounge with a soothing beat, Camel Club kid Don Vega walked behind the bar and served himself an orange juice, passed a few packs of cigarettes to friends and the bartender, played a game of chess with the owner, and left. Being associated with a ``cool'' scene is the image R.J. Reynolds wants to build. ``By operating in the nightlife scene, the objective is to directly reach trend influencers, the people that start and maintain trends. Our association with trend influencers * * * will have a lasting impact on clubgoers who will begin to associate Camel with what is `cool' '' reads KBA's marketing material. KBA believes by using the Camel Club kids and ``interacting with the club patrons using a low-key, under the radar approach, is our best way to establish that we understand and are a part of the scene.'' Once in the scene, Camel Club kids, who are paid hourly and typically work 4 to 6 hours a night, try to convert smokers to Camel by offering smokers fresh, full packs of Camels in exchange for their remaining non-Camel cigarettes. In return, the smokers are supposed to fill out an address card, known as the ``name generation'' card, which is passed back to R.J. Reynolds. According to KBA's marketing plan. ``This personal approach to selling is designed to, if executed effectively, convert the smoker to Camel and show the adult smoker that Camel is `cool' by the way we establish this subtle interchange.'' KBA declined to comment for this story and instead, asked R.J. Reynolds to respond to the Free Times. R.J. Reynolds did not contact the paper before deadline. Big Hair and Bubble Gum If R.J. Reynolds' stated goal is to influence trendsetters and be associated with ``cool,'' one has to wonder why KBA city managers targeted and signed Club 1148, a discotheque in the Flats. Club 1148 is anything but hip, the only trendsetters that hang out here are those left over from the '80s. On a recent Saturday night, for example, hairsprayed women in tight frosted jeans flounced around the dance floor as bare-chested men in vests watched form the sidelines. Many of the club's smokers chewed gum while they took long, rehearsed drags on Camel cigarettes. So why is R.J. Reynolds paying Club 1148 $5,000 for the right to distribute its cigarettes? The answer may lie in the club's demographics. The club is open to 19-year-olds. And while KBA marketing materials state its goal is to ``convert adult smokers at least 21-years-old,'' R.J. Reynolds needs to influence existing young smokers because they are less brand loyal, and therefore, more willing to try and then possibly stay with Camel cigarettes. Reaching young smokers is perhaps the same reason R.J. Reynolds is interested in coffeehouses, which attract young smokers. Coffeehouses are far more trendy than Club 1148. The clubs that receive the most money from R.J. Reynolds are the concert clubs, including the Agora, Peabody's DownUnder, Grog Shop and the Odeon, which often feature all- ages shows. It also invests heavily in promoting bands on behalf of these venues. Club tie-ins and joint sponsorship of bands are the cornerstones of the Camel Club Program. This is R.J. Reynolds' way of reinforcing the message that it is supporting the ``scene.'' ``Camel events are the single most important way that we leverage our relationship with [Camel Club Program] venues,'' says the KBA marketing plan. Dan Kemer, senior director of advertising and marketing for Belkin Productions, the concert promotion company that owns the Odeon, says the Camel Club Program helps promote artists he wants to showcase. ``It's another good marketing tool . . . the biggest bonus to us is the program helps get the word out on the street,'' says Kemer about the additional advertising dollars and printed flyers he receives through the program. Asked if he thought R.J. Reynolds could reach minors by promoting all age-shows, Kemer says he uses the program to tie into events that appeal to an older population, like the recent Me'shell Ndege'ocello concert. ``It's a great program for us,'' says Kathy Simkoff, who runs the Grog Shop on Coventry and received $7000 from R.J. Reynolds. She says the Camel Club Program's primary goal is to help clubs with promotion, not distribute cigarettes to patrons. Simkoff says the Camel Club kids have been ``very careful'' not to distribute cigarettes to minors attending concerts and she often does not know they are in the club. ``They don't get in your face like the Jagermeister girls,'' she says, referring to hired models who troll Cleveland bars, pushing the sweet alcoholic Jagermeister shooter. Similarly, John Michalek of Peabody's DownUnder, an all- ages concert club in the Flats which reportedly received $9,000 from R.J. Reynolds, says the program helps him promote shows and he ``has not seen any problems'' with the distribution of cigarettes to minors. But anti-smoking groups see the Camel Club Program as a campaign to attract underage smokers. ``R.J. Nabisco's Camel Club Program is just another strategy to seduce young people both over and under the age of 18 to use their deadly product, and is another indication as to why independent oversight of tobacco industry advertising and promotion is essential,'' says Lucinda Wykle- Rosenberg, research director for INFACT, a national corporate watchdog organization. INFACT is currently sponsoring a boycott of products made by R.J. Reynolds--which owns Nabisco foods--because of its cigarette marketing campaigns. Wykle- Rosenberg says the Camel Club Program is a campaign to get around anticipated regulations. What has long upset this group and other dedicated anti- tobacco groups are the alarming death rates associated with smoking and the rate of addiction among teenagers. The Centers For Disease Control says 400,000 Americans die every year from tobacco-related diseases, and has reported that smoking rates for students in grades 9-12 increased from 27.5 percent in 1991 to 34.8 percent in 1995. A 1996 University of Michigan study released in 1996 showed smoking among high school seniors has increased to the highest level in 17 years. And it is the demographic group, anti-tobacco advocates worry, that is attracted to such campaigns as the Camel Club Program. ``It's the Camel blitz,'' says one local bartender and Camel Club Program participant, who does not smoke. ``The Camel kiosks are everywhere.'' Editors' note: In the spirit of full disclosure, we want to point out that the Free Times has run cigarette ads periodically. But as Mark Naymik's piece demonstrates, our business policy to accept such ads has had no impact on our editorial policy. Area bars and clubs participating in the Camel Club program include: Agora, Euclid Tavern, Grog Shop, Peabody's DownUnder, U4iA, Odeon, Phantasy Complex, Club Visions, Whisky, Wilbert's, 6th Street Under, Galaxy Lounge, Brillo Pad, Club 1148, Edison's Pub, Lincoln Park Pub, Treehouse, Market Avenue Wine Bar, Red Star Cafe, Literary Cafe, Firehouse Brewery, Uptowne Grille, Hi & Dry, The Last Drop, La Cave du Vin, The Humidor, The Drip Stick, Rhythm Room.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, there are some very good things in this bill. The restoration of benefits for immigrants and the child health provisions are two of the most important. But let us not forget we essentially are talking about a flawed bill that the administration tried to make better. Making a bad bill better doesn't make it good. In the area of Medicare, and I want to talk about some points that I find most troubling. We have raised the premium as a result of this legislation. But we have not guaranteed help for low-income people. We have made some changes in the Medicare Programs, such as MSAs and a fee-for-service option and private contracts with doctors, which I think may undermine the Medicare program, which has a broad-based risk pool. We may well see healthier and wealthier seniors leave that risk pool and opt for private insurance coverage. In Medicaid, we repeal the requirement to pay nursing homes and hospitals an amount adequate to meet their costs for decent quality care. Let me underscore that. We do not have to pay them what is adequate to provide decent quality care. And we have made cuts in the support for hospitals and health care centers which serve as the safety net for the poor. Now, why are we making all of these cuts in areas where it really does not make sense from a policy point of view? We cannot divorce this bill from the tax bill. We are doing it so we can give tax breaks to many people in the upper income bracket. What I am afraid we will see, and I expect we will see as a result of these tax cuts, will be greater pressure on domestic social spending. Particularly greater pressure on the Medicare Program as the baby boom generation ages. I think that we are going to run the risk of going right back into the huge deficits we have seen in the past. I congratulate the administration on doing as good a job as they could under the circumstances. For me, it is just not good enough.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, the legislative branch appropriations bill for fiscal year 1998 cuts the funding level for the General Accounting Office by $9 million from the fiscal year 1997 funding level. This cut is unwise and unfair and should be reversed in Conference. Two years ago, the GAO and House and Senate appropriators reached an agreement on a two-year plan to reduce GAO's budget. As part of that agreement, GAO's budget has been reduced by 25 percent and its staffing has dropped below 3,500--its lowest level in almost 60 years. These cuts have taken a heavy toll. Hiring and promotions have been frozen for a long time. Staff reductions have diminished expertise in key areas. And needed investments in information technology have been placed on hold. Additional cuts now are not only a violation of that agreement, they will result in a loss of morale and a further loss in staff expertise as the agency's future is cast in doubt. Instead of pursuing this foolish course of action, the House should have honored the agreement over funding for the GAO. It could easily have made up for the revenue difference by refusing to fund the Government Reform and Oversight's partisan witch-hunt into campaign fundraising practices. The budget for that ``investigation'' is an extravagant waste of taxpayers' money. The Senate is doing a better, and fairer, job while the House's investigation is in a shambles. We are wasting millions of dollars on a mistake-plagued House investigation which duplicates the more comprehensive and bipartisan efforts of the Senate. Instead of funding partisan investigations in the Government Reform and Oversight Committee, let's give money to those than can really use it, the professional auditors and investigators of the GAO. The Senate has also taken a much wiser approach to GAO's funding, and kept faith with the agreement reached two years ago. By funding GAO at their requested level, the Senate has provided less than a 2 percent increase; not enough for any staff or program increases, just enough to continue current operations at their present levels. In essence it is a cost of living increase. This is certainly the least Congress should provide for the GAO, our own investigative arm. The cuts in the House bill are penny wise and pound foolish because the GAO remains an excellent investment for the American taxpayer. The financial benefits from its work in the last five years alone total over $103 billion. If we in Congress are to continue doing our jobs well, we need a strong and effective General Accounting Office. I urge my colleagues on the House Appropriations Committee to carefully consider these issues during the conference with the Senate on this bill.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask you to support the Wise amendment to the VA-HUD-independent agencies appropriations bill. The amendment would reallocate to the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board the $3 million the Environmental Protection Agency has asked for to perform the functions of the Board. Mr. Chairman, just last month: One train worker was killed, two were injured, and hundreds of people shut themselves in their homes for hours after a train carrying hazardous chemicals rear-ended a coal train and burst into flames near Charleston, WV; Five employees were sent to the hospital after a chemical spill at a silicon chip plant in San Jose; Four workers were sent to the hospital after an unexplained escape of toxic chemical vapors from a tanker truck in Buffalo; Two high school seniors and a science teacher were sent to the hospital after a bottle of hydrochloric acid toppled over during chemistry class in Orange County, CA; Two workers were hospitalized for hydrogen cyanide exposure following a spill at a chemical plant near Memphis; Two people were sent to the hospital after a chemical spill at a chemical waste management business near Dayton; One employee was sent to the hospital after a chemical spill at a factory in Mesa, AZ; Three hundred people were evacuated after a tanker truck carrying toluene crashed in Blacksville, WV; Hundreds of residents were evacuated after a chlorine spill at a chemical plant in Watervliet, NY; Two hundred people were evacuated and nearly two dozen sent to the hospital after a hydrochloric acid spill from a tanker in Industry, CA; One hundred people were evacuated in south-central Los Angeles after the discovery of a toxic acid leak from a pressurized gas cylinder left in a residential alley; Residents were evacuated and train traffic disrupted after a hydrochloric acid spill in Albany, NY; and Rush hour traffic was snarled for hours after a tanker truck full of corrosive chemicals crashed south of Boston. Every year thousands of chemical accidents are reported to the Federal Government, resulting in death, injury, evacuation, and disruption of the economy. That is why, in the reauthorization of the Clean Air Act in 1990, Congress established the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board. The Board was intended to be an independent body investigating the root causes of chemical accidents and recommending approaches of preventing them, operating much like the respected National Transportation Safety Board. We need the Board today, just as badly as we needed it in 1990. I urge you to support the Wise amendment and full funding of the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, whenever we have done clean air legislation we have done it on a bipartisan basis. It has never been a partisan issue. It should not be. We have always done it by trying to get all the very best information, but we should never give in to those who want to give us that false choice of an economy that is thriving and jobs on the one hand and protecting the environment on the other. We do not need to make that choice and history has borne out that we can have both.

Mr. WAXMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota. (Mr. VENTO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks and to include extraneous matter).

Mr. WAXMAN. Let me say to my good friend, the gentleman from California, that I know of his work in this area. We have collaborated together for a strong Clean Air Act. I know he has a strong commitment to cleaning up the environment and protecting the public health. I join the gentleman in wanting to be sure that we have good science upon which we make our determinations. I think that the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency did get good science. Science is never definitive. We are always learning. That is why I do appreciate the fact that the gentleman is calling for more money to continue to review the scientific information. If there is more information that comes about, an adjustment should be made and I think that is appropriate. We do not want anything frozen in any incorrect way. We have to respond to new information and new circumstances. But the Clean Air Act, as the gentleman knows, has been a success because it is based on protecting the public health and based on a standard that is set, given the latest scientific information we have. Let us continue to review it, but I think that the standards that are being promulgated are worthy of going into effect because the science, I feel, is sufficient for the Administrator to making the determination.

Mr. WAXMAN. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, having worked on the Clean Air Act for over 22 years, I want to point out something that has happened in this body every 6 or 7 years. The industry gets people stirred up with predictions that we have to choose between a clean environment on the one hand and a thriving economy with jobs for our people on the other, and that is a choice that is a false one. Mr. Chairman, it is a false one that has been offered to us in the past, and the record has proved that it was a false choice. The 1990 Clean Air Act was adopted overwhelmingly by a Democratic controlled Congress and heartily endorsed and signed by a Republican President. At that time we set in place a law that has worked successfully, not just as an environmental bill, but one of the most successful Government programs that we have ever had. Air pollution has been reduced dramatically in some places, and at a fraction of the costs that were predicted when we held all those hearings in preparation for that legislation. I want to cite some examples. In August 1990 there was a group called the Clean Air Working Group. It was the principal business group fighting the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. They came in and estimated that the 1990 amendments would cost industry between $51 billion and $91 billion a year. In fact, compliance costs are now estimated to have been just $22 billion annually upon full implementation of the law in the year 2005, 57 to 75 percent lower than the industry calculated, nearly 10 percent lower than the Bush administration even estimated in 1990. We passed a law, it took a long time to do it, to control the pollutants that cause acid rain. When we were discussing that, the electric utilities came in and said this is a terrible idea, even though we were going to use market mechanisms to reduce the cost of the compliance to get these pollutants down. They said, it is going to cost between $1,000 and $1,500 for every 1 ton of sulfur dioxide emissions that we reduce. We went ahead and adopted the law, especially at the urging of President Bush. We had in fact an allowance of now under $100 a ton of SO2 emissions. There are other examples I can go through. But the essential point that I want to make to the Members is that the choice that we are being told by some people, that we are going to have to choose between protecting the environment or with extraordinary costs protecting the health of our kids, asthmatics, the elderly that live in our communities, on the one hand, or protecting jobs on the other, is an absolute false choice. There was the issue before the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. She had recommendations from her scientific advisory board as to what is the standard to protect the public health. The Clean Air Act calls for her to set that standard. She set it based on good science. The President has said that those standards are to go into place. It is going to take maybe as much as a decade to reach those standards. In the meantime, we can evaluate the science as more information might come up. We can develop implementation plans that are commonsense plans. We were told in 1990, no more power lawnmowers, no more backyard barbecues. You cannot have a strong Clean Air Act. It will drive people out of business. People will lose their jobs. It is just not true. That has not been the reality. The dire consequences that industry has predicted have not and will not come to pass. Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that the law was adopted in 1990, and we are now in the seventh year of an economic boom. We can show Members the statements made by some of these same people that are making these statements today, that our economy is going to be lost. So I want to put a little sense of perspective in this debate when Members come here with a great deal of anguish about the Clean Air Act.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask your support for the Pallone amendment to the VA-HUD-Independent Agencies appropriations bill. The amendment would send $650 million to EPA to expedite the cleanup of toxic waste sites. Mr. Chairman, just last February, the Government Reform Committee held a hearing on the Superfund Program, the Federal program to clean up toxic waste sites. My Republican colleagues claimed the hearing would show it takes more time to clean up Superfund sites now than it did under previous administrations. But that's not what we learned during the hearing. We discovered instead that the Superfund Program suffered from neglect and hostility in its early years under a Republican administration. We discovered that the Clinton administration has overcome this legacy of neglect, essentially reinventing the Superfund Program, and--most importantly-- cleaning up more Superfund sites in 4 years that were cleaned up in the previous 12. Despite these facts, Republicans still criticize EPA's speed in cleaning up toxic waste sites. Isn't it ironic that with all that criticism about the speed of Superfund cleanups, we now face an EPA appropriations bill that cuts $650 million from the Superfund budget request. That's $650 million agreed to in the bipartisan budget agreement, $650 million allocated to EPA's Appropriations Subcommittee to expedite Superfund cleanups, and $650 million that will be spent instead on special interest projects. EPA would have started cleaning up 200 Superfund sites next year with that $650 million. Under this bill that number will be cut by more than half. Southern California alone would have seen EPA cleaning up toxic waste sites in Riverside, San Bernardino, Fullerton, Baldwin Park, Monterey Park, and Santa Fe Springs. Instead, this bill will force EPA to play Russian Roulette, picking some sites for clean up and letting the rest wait another year. Mr. Chairman, 68 million Americans live within 4 miles of a toxic waste site. For the sake of those 68 million Americans, I ask your support for the Pallone amendment.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, the House has passed a bill, the Senate has passed a different bill. There will be a conference. The Republican leaders today have said to us that when they go into conference, they are going to try to hold the House position, but they are going to have to move toward the Senate to get an agreement. The chairman of the Committee on the Budget said we have got to be aware that structural changes are going to come down the line at some point, and he is not for this change this week. The point is that we know what the House Republicans were for in Medicare in the last Congress. They wanted structural changes that would have ended the Medicare program as we know it and would have put a lot of elderly people into the lowest priced HMO that would survive profitably by denying them care. I cannot understand why we are hearing that the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] would object to a recorded vote. If he really thinks it is a bad idea to change the age limit, he ought to be willing to vote with us to reject that idea when they go into conference. The Senate reconciliation bill contains a number of ill-conceived provisions relating to Medicare. They increase the burdens on beneficiaries with home health copayments. They have further balanced billing beyond what now exists in the law. They have premiums increase dramatically for higher income people in a very complicated and unworkable way. If you combine the income testing of the premium along with the MSA option, which is in the House bill, it raises the specter of fragmenting the risk pool of the program. That sounds technical, but the effect on moderate-income Medicare beneficiaries who are older and sicker is not going to be some theoretical one. It will be real and it will ultimately hurt many of them. The issue before us and the focus is the Senate voted to change the Medicare age from 65 to 67. We want to say ``no'' to that provision. It is irresponsible. It is a proposal where there has been no examination of the effects it will have or who it will hurt, and we know already we have a problem with many people waiting for Medicare coverage who have no health insurance coverage. Let us not widen this gap into which many people will fall. We are talking about people who are often downsized, which is the euphemism, out of jobs when they are older, but they are not old enough for Medicare. They are not old enough for Social Security. Under Social Security they at least can come in and get a reduced benefit rather than go without any income. But if we say to them, you have got to wait until you are 67 to get any health care coverage and they happen to be sick, disabled but not disabled enough to get covered as a disabled person, they are not going to find a health insurance coverage insurer that will cover them because of preexisting conditions. We must vote to reject the Senate provisions. The Senate reconciliation bill contains a number of ill-conceived provisions relating to Medicare. Burdens on beneficiaries are increased with home health copayments, protections against balanced billing are removed in some cases, and premiums are increased dramatically for higher income people in a very complicated and unworkable way. Combining income-testing the premium, along with the MSA option included in both the House and Senate bills, raises the specter of fragmenting the risk pool of the program. That sounds technical--but the effect on moderate-income Medicare beneficiaries who are older and sicker is not going to be some theoretical one--it will be real, and it will ultimately hurt them. But I want to focus particularly on the provision in the Senate bill that raises the age of eligibility of Medicare from 65 to 67. This is a change that is totally irresponsible. It is being proposed with no examination of the effects it will have or who it will hurt. It is flat out bad policy. We already have a problem in this country with people who find themselves out of the work force at a time when they are getting older, but aren't yet eligible for Medicare. They face a truly terrible situation: frequently they simply cannot find any sort of affordable insurance coverage. This problem is so serious that we have frequently recognized over the last several years that something needs to be done to extend medical benefits to this population. Instead, this proposal goes in the opposite direction: It takes people at the very time they are most likely to begin to face health problems, at the very time that getting affordable private coverage is most difficult--and we delay their eligibility for Medicare. A lot of people out of the work force in their early sixties aren't wealthy or healthy people: they are people in poorer health, or with some disability not quite serious enough to qualify them as disabled, or people that their employers have decided to downsize out and replace with younger workers. This would add to their problems by delaying their eligibility for health coverage. Unlike Social Security, where people can at least elect a reduced benefit if they need it before the age when full coverage begins--there is no partial coverage for health benefits. Medicare just won't be there. This is a change that we should vigorously oppose. House conferees should not accept it. People who need Medicare, who can't wait 2 more years until they are 67, deserve the support of every Member of this House in opposing this change.