Summary:

All articles in House section

DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001
(House of Representatives - June 23, 2000)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H5039-H5072] DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001 The SPEAKER. Pursuant to House Resolution 529 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, H.R. 4690. {time} 0904 In the Committee of the Whole Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill (H.R. 4690) making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes, with Mr. Hastings of Washington in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Thursday, June 22, 2000, the amendment by the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) had been disposed of and the bill was open for amendment from page 35, line 8, through page 35, line 14. Pursuant to the order of the House of that day, no further amendment to the bill shall be in order except pro forma amendments offered by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations or their designees for the purpose of debate and amendments printed in the Congressional Record on or before June 22, 2000, which may be offered only by the Member who caused it to be printed or his designee, shall be considered read, shall not be subject to amendment (except pro forma amendments for the purpose of debate), and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the question. Before consideration of any other amendment, it shall be in order to consider the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) to section 110, which shall be debatable only for 40 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. Amendment Offered by Mr. Waxman Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. Waxman: Page 37, line 11, after the period, insert the following: The preceding sentence shall not apply to litigation filed before January 1, 2000, that has received funding under section 109 of Public Law 103-317 (28 U.S.C. 509 note). The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, June 22, 2000, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and a Member opposed each will control 20 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman). Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes. [[Page H5040]] I am offering this amendment with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), the ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs; the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen); the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan); and the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow). This is the third time this week we have offered an amendment to an appropriations bill to allow the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Justice Department to continue their tobacco lawsuit. The first time we offered our amendment to the VA-HUD bill, we lost on a close vote of 197-207. The second time we offered the amendment, we reached an agreement with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), the subcommittee chairman, and prevailed on a voice vote. I thought that this issue had been resolved. I thought the House had determined that the veterans and America's taxpayers deserved their day in court. The Federal lawsuit would be decided by a judge and a jury in a court based on the merits of the case, not by Congress through legislative riders. Unfortunately, I was wrong. The bill before us today, the Commerce- State-Justice appropriations bill, would undo the agreement we reached on Tuesday. Once again, it contains a rider that would defund the Federal tobacco lawsuit. During the debate over the past few days, we have learned several things. First, we have learned that stopping the Federal lawsuit is unfair to veterans. In 1998, Congress made a promise to veterans when we took the funds that were directed at veterans for cigarette-related disabilities and used it for highways. Congress said, We'll go to the courts and get money from the tobacco companies. If we adopt the language in this bill without our amendment, we will be going back on this promise. This is simply wrong. That is why our amendment is strongly supported by the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, the Disabled American Veterans, and AMVETS. We have also learned that defunding the Federal lawsuit is unfair to America's seniors. Each year Medicare spends $20 billion treating tobacco-related illnesses. The Federal lawsuit could potentially recover these costs, extending the solvency of the Medicare trust fund for years. That is why our amendment is strongly supported by the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare and other seniors' organizations. In effect, we have a simple choice. We can stand with an industry that has lied to the American people for decades, or we can stand with our Nation's veterans and our senior citizens. I ask my colleagues to think about what we are going to do. We are about to take the unprecedented action of stopping the judicial process in the middle of a pending case. And we are about to take this action for an industry that is the least deserving industry in America, for an industry that has targeted our children, for an industry that manipulated nicotine to keep smokers addicted, for an industry that has deceived and lied to the public for decades. Our amendment is drawn very narrowly. It does not allow the Justice Department to seek funding from other agencies to sue the gun industry, the gambling industry, or any other industry. All our amendment says is that this new policy should not be applied retroactively to halt pending litigation that commenced in reliance on the current law. In effect, the amendment is nothing more than a savings clause that would allow the tobacco suit to continue. Our amendment raises exactly the same issue we debated on Monday and decided on Tuesday. Today, as we did on Tuesday, we should stand with our veterans and our seniors, not the tobacco companies. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman from Kentucky opposed to the amendment? Mr. ROGERS. I am, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 20 minutes. Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 7 minutes. Mr. Chairman, what this argument is about today is unlike what has been argued before in this body on this matter. This debate is about what was the intent of the Congress in 1995 when we passed the act in this bill that allowed the Department of Justice to be reimbursed from other agencies for extraordinary expensive cases. What was on the table at that time was a lawsuit by a company against the Navy when the Navy canceled the A-12 aircraft contract. It was a multibillion-dollar lawsuit. Justice came to us and said, Would you please put in your bill a provision that allows the Navy to reimburse Justice for representing it in this massive lawsuit against the government. We said, Okay, we'll do that. Never in anyone's wildest imagination on the floor of this body was it anticipated that that statute would be used by the Government to initiate lawsuits, to sue people willy-nilly. Why? Because the Justice Department has a Civil Rights Division of some 1,039 lawyers with hundreds of millions of dollars to spend in filing lawsuits. Why would they need this kind of money to file a lawsuit? No, the Congress intended when we passed that statute to enable the Justice Department to be able to represent the Government when it was sued, not when it was the suer. Now the Government has filed three of these lawsuits using this statute contrary to the intent of the Congress, thumbing its nose at the Congress and saying, We will decide how we're going to spend the money you gave us from the taxpayers. We don't care what you thought when you passed the statute. That is the attitude of the Justice Department. Since the section was enacted, so-called 109, they have received roughly $324 million in reimbursements, almost all of which has been for just two massive lawsuits, the A-12 airplane case I mentioned, and the Winstar Savings and Loan cases where Justice was defending the Government against $33 billion in claims. Clearly, section 109 is an important tool to protect the Government and the taxpayer and should stay on the books. Without it, Justice would not have been able to mount credible defenses in critical cases and the Government could have suffered billions of dollars in losses. What we do in the bill is clarify Congressional intent. We say, Look, what we meant when we gave you that authority in 1995 was to defend the Government against these massive claims, not to initiate lawsuits. And the bill does ensure that the money would be used for defensive litigation which was the justification provided by the Justice Department when it sought from us this special authority and the understanding of Congress when we provided that authority. It is the reasonable approach, and it is the right thing to do. It ensures that funding provided for other programs in this and other appropriations bills are not diverted in the future for proactive lawsuits as have been done to the tune of over $8 million so far. Nothing in this bill restricts or prevents Justice from continuing any lawsuit, ongoing or prospective. Let them do what they will. We give them hundreds of millions of dollars with 1,034 lawyers in the Civil Rights Division to pursue civil actions. Nothing in the bill would restrict or prevent that. {time} 0915 This bill contains in fact $147 million to pay for those huge numbers of lawyers within the Civil Division to carry out affirmative cases, as the government sees fit. The Waxman amendment would modify this bill, to allow the government to continue raiding the budgets of other agencies for four proactive cases that were filed about Justice just before this year and which are being paid through the inappropriate use of section 109 authority. It would prohibit the use of section 109 for proactive cases filed after the beginning of the year. In so doing, the Waxman amendment by itself acknowledges that, in fact, section 109 is for defensive purposes only. But the gentleman says we acknowledge that, but give us a break this time for all cases filed before the beginning of the year, the statute is either for defensive purposes or it is not. If it is for defensive purposes, it acknowledges the intent of the Congress in 1995 that it was for defensive purposes. [[Page H5041]] If it was for defensive purposes then, the government was wrong to use these funds to file any lawsuits since 1995, so I reject out of hand the argument that this statute ought to be modified so that we could protect and cover the rear ends of those at Justice that made the decision that was contrary to the intent of Congress, wrong and should not be rewarded, as this amendment would do by giving them an excuse, giving them an out and saying yes, it is for defensive purposes, but we are going to forgive you this time. Sorry, sorry about that. The law is the law. This was for defensive purposes, the Justice Department has violated it, and the gentleman wants to reward them on this floor, and I suggest that we shall not do that. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, support for continuing the tobacco lawsuit should not be a partisan issue, and this amendment has bipartisan support. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to one of the great bipartisan leaders in this House, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen). Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague yielding the time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this amendment, because I honestly believe in my heart of hearts that the lawsuit against tobacco must be continued. Most of us have been to Gettysburg and have walked those hallowed fields of that place, and I often marvel that so many are willing to give their lives for a cause that they believe in. What makes Gettysburg even more important it was truly the turning point of the Civil War and began the tough road to reunification of the United States. Mr. Chairman, we find ourselves in a turning point of another war, and that is the war against youth smoking. For decades, the tobacco companies have lied to us here in Congress, lied to the people of this great land and continually targeted the American children. There surely must be accountability for these actions. Many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle are naturally wary of government lawsuits and in the vast majority of the cases, I agree with them; however, I also know that my colleagues on this side of the aisle were properly incensed when the definition of the words like ``is'' were twisted to avoid responsibility. Mr. Chairman, I would say to my colleagues on this side of the aisle that the tobacco companies have consistently done the same word manipulation for decades and have consistently avoided responsibility. I believe that the time has come to demand responsibility, and this is why I am supporting this amendment. I also know that many of my colleagues are concerned over the potential for future abuse of this authority, including the possibility that this or another administration may follow the advice of gun control extremists and pursue a lawsuit against the firearms industry. To those who share my concern on that issue, I implore them to read this amendment, it very clearly prohibits any future use of section 109 authority for such purposes. The amendment allows only one exemption, the tobacco lawsuit. This amendment assures that the executive branch cannot file any lawsuits that were not already active and receiving section 109 funds before the start of this year. There is only one lawsuit that fits that description, the tobacco lawsuit and all other lawsuits are prohibited. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this meritorious amendment. It is important to the health of our children and the future health of our grandchildren. Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes). Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, there is strong bipartisan opposition to this bill and I absolutely recognize my friends' right to take their position, but let me focus on the facts for a moment. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. This amendment jeopardizes the appropriations authority granted to Congress by the Constitution, and it will set a precedent that the administration, the President will determine spending instead of the Congress. I ask my colleagues to consider the precedent that this amendment will set with respect to our authority in Congress to determine the spending levels for our country. Attorney General Reno herself testified before the Senate that the Federal Government did not have the authority to bring the very lawsuit that my colleagues are advocating today. The law says the suit cannot be won, the money will be wasted, money that should be spent on veterans health care. In 1997, again, I say Ms. Reno testified that there was no legal basis to recover. The States have the authority and have a recovery of $246 billion that will be jeopardized by this amendment. The White House has failed to enact its desired 55 cent per pack Federal cigarette tax increase. The Attorney General shamelessly files the very same suit she explicitly admitted was groundless. This is ridiculous. Tobacco manufacturers never dupe the Federal Government. Washington has known for decades that smoking is dangerous. Since 1964, every pack sold in the United States has carried a mandated label warning of the risk of smoking. Nobody wants people to be harmed by smoking, especially no one wants children smoking, nor can Washington claim that it somehow acquired individual smokers right to sue. In 1997, the Department of Veterans Affairs rejected on the grounds that veterans assumed risk of smoking, a claim allegedly by former members of the Armed Forces in Washington freely distributed cigarettes 10 years after placing warning labels on the packages. Mr. Chairman, in 1947 a law was granted saying the Supreme Court in the United States may sue third parties to recoup health care costs but this is about insurance companies saving veterans health care money. To sum up, history and legal precedent do not support this amendment. The law and history say we will lose, save this money for health care, for veterans and any other group supported by this Congress. Strongly oppose the Waxman amendment on legal ground. Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the veterans organizations support our amendment, because they want that money to be brought back into veterans health care. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans) one of the great champions on behalf of veterans in this institution, and the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Veterans Affairs. Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, this week the House passed an amendment to the VA-HUD appropriations bill that enables the Department of Justice to pursue its pending litigation against the tobacco industry. This lawsuit seeks to recover billions of dollars spent by the VA and other Federal agencies to treat tobacco-related illnesses. A rider in this appropriations bill which would block the Justice Department from accepting these funds is a mirror image of the VA-HUD rider. The amendment I join with the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and my other colleagues in supporting today simply allows the wheels of justice to move forward. Mr. Chairman, there is something terribly wrong with the leadership of this body. During the last Congress, despite overwhelming evidence that tobacco-related illnesses are linked to nicotine addiction developed during the military service, the Republican leadership of the House effectively denied veterans the opportunity to seek legitimate compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs. Instead, this House passed a sense of Congress Resolution that the Attorney General and I quoted ``should take all steps necessary to recover from tobacco companies amounts corresponding to the costs which have been incurred by the VA for treatment of tobacco-related illness of veterans.'' Mr. Chairman, it seems our leadership would seek to walk away from this commitment strangling even the hope of a fair settlement from the big tobacco companies for the VA medical [[Page H5042]] care system. Passing this appropriation with the proposed rider will prevent Justice from using funds in pursuit of this lawsuit would be nothing less than shameful. If this House is not totally beholden to the tobacco industry, it would adopt this amendment. It will enable legal proceedings to go forward, and it will allow the outcome of lawsuits to be properly determined in court, not here on the floor of the House. Earlier this week, an open letter was distributed to Members of Congress by four major veterans service organizations, AMVETS, Disabled American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States. Veterans have made it clear that they support tobacco litigation that could allow a fair settlement to support VA's treatment of thousands of veterans' tobacco-related illnesses. That is why the veterans organizations who coauthor the independent budget have strongly endorsed our amendment. Let us keep our promise to America's veterans and let this lawsuit move forward on its own merit. In the name of justice, please support the Waxman-Evans amendment. Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lewis). (Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, the Federal tobacco lawsuit is bad public policy and a waste of taxpayer dollars. The case is not about the law, but about the Federal Government extorting money from an industry that it does not like. Which industry will be the next victim of this punitive action? The tobacco industry, in accordance with the terms of its 1998 settlement with the States, has changed its marketing, advertising, and business practices. The industry is also paying the States billions of dollars. Now the Justice Department wants a share of this revenue stream for the Federal Government and is willing to further sidestep to try to get it. The Justice Department needs to stop stealing veterans health care funds to pay for its baseless lawsuit. This suit claims the Federal Government and the public were deceived about the health risks of tobacco products. The same Federal Government that claims it was deceived has required health warnings on tobacco products since the 1960s. The Surgeon General's 1964 report details the risks of tobacco use. The American people are not as clueless as this lawsuit claims, people know the health risks associated with use of tobacco products. It is absurd to claim ignorance on this point. Adult consumers have the right to make risk judgments and choose the legal products they use. They also need to take personal responsibility for those choices. No Federal law gives the government authority to collect Medicare funds as proposed in this lawsuit. Mr. Chairman, 3 years ago, Attorney General Reno testified to the Senate that no Federal cause of action existed for Medicare and Medicaid claims; suddenly she has changed her tune under pressure from the White House. The Justice Department on the same day it announced the civil lawsuit ended its 5-year investigation of the tobacco industry without making any criminal charges. Last year the Congressional Research Service concluded that with a full accounting of costs of lifetime government-funded health care and benefits for tobacco users and tobacco excise taxes, the Federal Government actually nets $35 billion per year. There are not costs for a Federal Government to recover. It is already making money off of tobacco use and this administration only wants more. The absurdity of this legislation by litigation aside, one issue should be clear to everyone today, veterans health benefits are not intended to pay trial lawyers in a politically motivated lawsuit. This is not a rider. This is not special treatment. This is Congress carrying out its role in appropriating how tax dollars are to be spent. Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske), a respected physician Member of the House, one of the great leaders on public health issues. (Mr. GANSKE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Chairman, I have a great deal of respect for the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), as well as the chairman of the subcommittee; but we disagree. As a physician on this Floor, I have been asked many medical questions related to diseases caused by tobacco that is affecting members and their families. Tobacco is an addicting substance that causes lethal disease. It certainly has not spared our colleagues or their families. Big tobacco is trying to stymie a Federal lawsuit that seeks to recover costs of treatment of the tobacco-related diseases that the Federal taxpayers have subsidized. This includes the care of Members of Congress and their families, as well as other Federal employees, veterans, and Medicare beneficiaries. {time} 0930 The States recover damages against big tobacco based on their share of Medicaid. The Federal Government should too. The VA spends $4 billion annually on treatment of tobacco-related illness. Medicare spends $20.5 billion per year on tobacco-relayed illnesses. Big tobacco has known about the addictive lethal consequences of tobacco for a long time. Their CEOs committed perjury in testimony before Congress. Did those CEOs get punished for lying under oath? We did not even give them a slap on the wrist, and their deceitful lives have cost lives. The Waxman-Hansen amendment is supported by veterans groups, senior organizations, and practically all the public health groups. Mr. Speaker, this vote is about one thing: Are you for big tobacco, or are you for the American taxpayer who has paid the bill for big tobacco too long? Big tobacco has spread a lot of money around Capitol Hill to try to get Congress to stop the Department of Justice lawsuit. Well, here is your chance to be with the AMVETS, with the VFW, with all of these health groups, and, most importantly, with the taxpayers of this country. Vote for this amendment. Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger). Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, as a veteran of World War II, I remember all those great wonderful cigarettes that Uncle Sam gave me when I was in the service. I would like to say Ms. Reno should have tons of money because of those many things that everybody requested that she investigate but she never has. Let me just say I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that to recover under secondary payer provisions, Washington must show that the sales of tobacco are in and of themselves wrongful, and since the Feds have consistently regulated, subsidized, promoted and fiscally profited from tobacco products, while fully aware of the plant's health risk, such a showing would seem difficult, unless Washington admits being complicit to the wrongdoing; and a basic common law rule, my understanding is, is that one accomplice cannot sue another. So it seems to me that money spent on this effort is an absolute waste on a cause that is going to lose, and, besides that, I think Mrs. Reno has tons of money that we begged her to use in investigating some of the White House situations, and she never has. Why should she need more money? Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), a Member who is noted for his interest in fiscal responsibility and has a unique perspective on the promise made to the veterans a couple of years ago in the transportation bill. (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Waxman amendment for reasons of equity, for reasons of futility, and for reasons of constitutionality. The equities are obvious here. If the men and women who served in the [[Page H5043]] Armed Forces of this country contracted a disease related to tobacco when they served in those Armed Forces, and the country is paying for the care of those diseases in the form of VA health benefits, we ought to recover those costs from those who caused the disease in the tobacco industry. It is a matter of simple equity, and that is why the veterans organizations and the health organizations support this. We want to avoid futility. Earlier this week we passed an amendment on this floor that said that the Veterans Administration could free up administrative expenses, not health expenses, but administrative expenses, and send them over to the Justice Department to help pay for the cost of this suit. If we do not pass the Waxman amendment here, that effort would have been futile, because we will undo the result of that amendment. So we would be having the VA sending money over that the Justice Department could not use. That is not a mistake, but it would be a mistake to do that. Finally, there is a matter of constitutionality. I think it is unprecedented and terribly unwise for Members of the legislative branch to interfere and intervene in ongoing litigation brought by the Department of Justice. It is the worst kind of second guessing. It is the worst kind of abandonment of separation of powers. The Justice Department has made a decision, in my judgment a wise decision, at our direction, to initiate complex litigation to recover these costs. For us to intervene at this point, second guess at this point, is unwise and may in fact be unconstitutional. Let us let this litigation go forward. Let us let the taxpayers and the veterans of this country have their day in court. Let us join together and pass the Waxman amendment. Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property of the Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, it appears that the Attorney General and the Justice Department by way of this amendment is again attempting to insert the tobacco industry smack dab in the bull's eye of the target, and I guess that the command will be ``fire when ready.'' The tobacco industry has become the convenient and consistent whipping boy in this Congress as long as I have been here; and with each session, the opponents appear to grow more vocal and more determined to drive the final death knell into the coffin of tobacco. Nine or 10 years ago, and I told the chairman this some time ago, I had the privilege of going through the Lorillard plant in my district; and what I learned as a result of that visit that day was the dollars in taxes that they pay, local, State and Federal. I was educated. The Federal Government, Mr. Chairman, as you know, has consistently regulated, subsidized, promoted and fiscally profited from tobacco. If we keep fooling around with this, we are going to drive the tobacco industry into the coffin, and then the coffin finally into the ground, and those coffers that realize millions and millions of dollars directly from tobacco will either dry up, or, in the alternative, we will have to find other sources of revenue, and then you will start hearing people kicking and screaming and crying, what happened to the tobacco money? Well, the tobacco money was gone because of the consistent buggy whipping that has been on across their backs emanating from this very Chamber, and one of these days, Mr. Chairman, it is going to come back to haunt us. I will admit, I do not come to the well completely objective, because I represent growers and manufacturers; but let us be careful as we go about this. Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro). Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Waxman amendment. America's veterans have put their lives on the line for their Nation, and big tobacco should be held accountable for what they did to our veterans. Allowing the Justice Department to continue its suit against the tobacco industry will return millions of dollars in needed funding to the veterans health care system. That is fitting, considering the number of our Nation's veterans that now suffer from tobacco-related illnesses, that to this day, I might add, the tobacco industry denies are as a result of cigarettes. Who supports this amendment? The American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids. That is who supports it. Let us take a look at who opposes it. Philip Morris and the big tobacco companies, the folks who stood before the committee with their hands raised and talked about their product as not being addictive. That is what they said. That is what they told the American public. The group that tells us that when today's smokers die, that the next group of folks they go to, ``their replacement smokers,'' are 12-year-old kids. Those are their words, ``replacement smokers,'' 12-year-old kids. Mr. Chairman, it is time for big tobacco to pay the price for the damage that they have done. We should hold them accountable for their lies. Support veterans health care, protect our children from the tobacco industry's predatory practices. I urge Members to support the Waxman amendment today. Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to note the contribution that the gentlewoman from Connecticut has made as a leader on this issue in the Committee on Appropriations and commend her for her statement. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), who has been so involved in public health issues. (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, once again it appears that some individuals on the other side of the aisle would put politics before people, particularly our children. If the tobacco companies have nothing to hide, then why do they care if we have a lawsuit? Well, since the landmark State lawsuit settlement in 1998, tobacco companies have actually increased the amount of advertising aimed at our children. They lure our children with glossy ads. They become addicted to nicotine. It leaves millions of Americans sick and dying, while the tobacco companies continue to rake in the profits and the taxpayers of this Nation pick up the tab for the health care. Mr. Chairman, the Justice Department must have the funding to investigate big tobacco. I encourage my colleagues, vote for the Waxman amendment. Our children's lives depend on it. Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my good friend, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), who has been very involved in health issues and who before coming to the Congress was in the nursing profession. Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Waxman-Hansen amendment. I am outraged that the bill before us today would, in effect, halt the Justice Department's action to hold tobacco companies accountable. This rider would undo an agreement made just 2 days ago here on the floor of this House. That agreement would allow the Veterans Department to support DOJ's litigation. Mr. Chairman, this rider would have the effect of giving the tobacco companies immunity. It gives them a free pass by hamstringing Justice's ability to go after them in the courts. Remember, the tobacco industry produces an addictive product that, when used as directed and intended, contributes to the death of 300,000 to 400,000 people a year, injuring hundreds of thousands more. This industry has systematically attempted to lure children to start smoking and lied about it for years. It has manipulated the levels of nicotine to increase the addictiveness of cigarettes and lied about it for years. Tobacco companies deserve no special treatment. They deserve to be held accountable, and that is what passing the Waxman-Hansen amendment would allow, simple justice. I urge support for this amendment. Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is [[Page H5044]] remaining and who has the right to close. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) has 6 minutes remaining, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) has 3 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Kentucky has the right to close. Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder), another physician in the House of Representatives. {time} 0945 Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Chairman, as a family doctor and a Marine veteran, I have to ask myself now, why are the tobacco companies and their allies in Congress fighting this amendment, fighting this lawsuit in this way. Number one, they know the health costs that their product has caused, and those of us that have been in medicine have seen the lung cancer and the heart disease and the sexual impotence and all of those other problems; and we have seen those health costs. The tobacco companies know they lied to this Congress and lied to the American people about the effects of their product and the addictive quality. Finally, the tobacco companies know they targeted our men in uniform, those of us who used to open the C-rations and get the packs of cigarettes in there; we know we were targeted as we look back in time. That information would come out in this lawsuit, how they preyed on our young men, 17 and 18 and 19 and 20 years old, addicted them to this product, at a time when we were asking them to go into combat for their country in World War II and the Korean War and the Vietnam War. That is what this lawsuit is about, and they know what it is about. They do not want to have to defend in front of a jury, having targeted those young men. Support the Waxman amendment. Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), one of the leaders of the House of Representatives. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for his outstanding leadership on this very important issue. Mr. Chairman, I rise as a member of the Committee on Appropriations to point out a certain irony here. We were told on our committee that there should be no riders in our appropriations bill this year; and yet the majority is going to great lengths to include this very dangerous rider in this particular bill. The Attorney General has stated that if this rider is there, this bill that blocks funding for the lawsuits is enacted into law, we would have no ability to continue the litigation in the tobacco suits. Mr. Chairman, our colleagues have eloquently spoken to the $90 billion cost, both public and private, to our economy and the many diseases that are caused by tobacco. I want to dwell for a half a minute on our children. Approximately 5 million American children smoke. Every day, 3,000 more children become regular smokers. One out of three of these children will eventually die from tobacco-related causes. The market for cigarettes is maintained by marketing products to young people who can replace those smokers who die or quit. As a result of these tactics, the tobacco industry creates a lifetime of health problems and health costs for these children, and they should be held accountable. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will strengthen veterans' health care, and I urge our colleagues to support it. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Waxman/Evans/Hansen/ Meehan/Stabenow amendment. This amendment will allow the Department of Justice to pursue its lawsuit against the tobacco companies and seek to recover billions of dollars in health care expenditures that tobacco has cost federal taxpayers. The Attorney General has stated that if the rider in this bill that blocks funding for the lawsuit is enacted into law, ``We would have no ability to continue our litigation.'' This vote boils down to a simple choice: Will we vote to protect taxpayers and allow them to have their day in court? Or will we vote to protect Big Tobacco and once again allow the tobacco companies to escape legal responsibility for all the harm they have caused. Tobacco use is the leading cause of premature death in the United States. Over 430,000 premature deaths each year are a result of smoking related illnesses including chronic lung disease, coronary heart disease, and stroke as well as cancer of the lungs, larynx, esophagus, mouth, and bladder. This accounts for one out of five deaths, and twice the number of deaths caused by AIDS, alcohol, motor vehicles, homicide, drugs, and suicide combined. Smoking causes or contributes to a variety of debilitating physical and medical problems. Chronic coughing, emphysema, and bronchitis are products of smoking, and smokers are more susceptible to influenza. Smokers are more likely to suffer from periodontal disease. Smoking can also cause the early onset of menopause among women, incontinence, and reduced fertility, and increases the risk of impotence by 50 percent. Approximately 5 million American children smoke. And each day, another 3,000 children become regular smokers. One out of every three of these children will eventually die from tobacco-related causes. The market for cigarettes is maintained by marketing tobacco products to young people who can replace older smokers who die or quit. As a result of these tactics, the tobacco industry creates a lifetime of health care problems and health care costs for these children, and they should be held accountable. In addition to recovery of costs, this lawsuit seeks injunctive relief to stop the tobacco companies from marketing to children and engaging in other deceptive and illegal practices. Tobacco-related illnesses cost the federal taxpayer approximately $25 billion a year, excluding the federal share of Medicaid. The Medicare program pays $20.5 billion annually to treat tobacco-related illnesses; the Veterans Administration pays $4 billion; the Department of Defense pays $1.6 billion; and the Indian Health Service pays $300 million. In addition, tobacco-related health care costs the Medicaid program nearly $17 billion a year, of which federal taxpayers pay nearly $10 billion. Overall, public and private payments for tobacco-related care total approximately $90 billion each year. Any recovery of Medicare costs from this litigation help would be deposited in the Medicare trust fund. If the lawsuit is successful, these dollars could add years to the solvency of Medicare or fund a prescription drug benefit for seniors. Veterans medical care would be strengthened as will. Voting for this amendment is the right thing to do for seniors, veterans, kids, and taxpayers. I urge my colleagues to support the Waxman/Evans/Hansen/Meehan/Stabenow amendment. Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of our time. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) has made the point very clearly that this is not about other lawsuits, it is about the tobacco lawsuit alone. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) and the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) and others who, from a medical perspective, have told us how important it is to pursue recovery for health care services. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans) has pointed out that for the veterans, we made a promise to them, we should not betray them. We should keep that promise to reach out and get funds for veterans health care. This lawsuit against tobacco should be permitted to proceed. We should not defund it through a rider on an appropriations bill. Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to vote for this amendment. It is the right thing to do. Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of our time. (Mr. ROGERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, contrary to what we have heard, this amendment and this debate is not about whether one likes or believes in smoking, or whether it is good or bad for us. That is not the issue here. The issue is not whether this lawsuit has merits or not. That is what we have heard here, arguing the merits or demerits of the lawsuit. It has nothing to do with that. The question here is whether or not the Justice Department violated the law itself in filing the lawsuit. Last year, for the first time that I have ever recalled, Justice asked the Congress for money to file a specific lawsuit. The Congress said no; the money was denied. Justice then secretly went to three agencies and said, give us the money to file this lawsuit. They said, wait a minute, where is your authority for that? They said, well, look at section 109 of the 1995 State Commerce-Justice bill where it says that agencies can reimburse the Justice Department for representing them in court, and they dragged the money out of those agencies and filed this lawsuit. Well, that statute that they are talking about is the crux of what we are [[Page H5045]] talking about here today. That statute merely says that the Government can be represented in court when it is sued. That was the intent of the Congress; no to be the suer. No one told the Congress that they had done this. We had to find it out on our own, and we did. So the Department of Justice, the place supposedly where the Nation's morals are protected, the place where moral authority resides in this government, if anywhere, itself is the one that is thwarting the will of the Congress; that is, twisting words for its own purposes, that is clearly violating the intent of the Congress in passing the act in the first place. Why was it passed in the first place? The Government was sued, a huge multibillion dollar suit by the contractor for the Navy Department when we canceled the A-12 aircraft contract. In 1995, Justice says, please, Congress, help us. Allow the Defense Department to pay us back for representing them in defending this lawsuit, and we said, we think that is a legitimate purpose, and we wrote it into our bill. That is the statute they are trying to use. Mr. Chairman, we all know, my colleagues know that that statute is for defending the Government, not suing, willy-nilly. Why? Because we provided in this bill $147 million for them to bring lawsuits; 1,034 lawyers we hire there to file lawsuits. We are paying those lawyers to file lawsuits. This statute is for defending the Government, not suing. And yet, they would have us believe that this great moral authority at the Justice Department is right. I say to my colleagues, the question here is not the merits of the lawsuit or any other lawsuit, the question here is the merits of the morality at the Justice Department. Does the end justify the means? They say yes; I say no. Is this a nation of laws or of men? I say laws, and the Congress better say laws. They are taking your prerogative here down there and they are using it as they choose. I say to my colleagues, reject the Justice Department's grab of other agencies' money, but more importantly, the Justice Department's seizure of power away from the Congress. Never was it intended in this Congress in the passage of this statute that it was to be funding lawsuits filed by the Government. No one ever anticipated that or thought about it when we passed the act. The intent of the Congress is being clarified in our bill, and that is, this statute is for defensive purposes only. Reject the Waxman amendment that would legitimize and reward a Justice Department that has seized your prerogative and is acting like they are the law themselves and we do not matter. Well, Mr. Chairman, the end does not justify the these means. I urge my colleagues to tell the Justice Department to obey the law. Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the Waxman-Evans-Hansen-Meehan-Stabenow amendment. This amendment would restore the permission of the Justice Department to use section 109 to receive funding from client agencies interested in aiding them in the tobacco litigation. The federal tobacco litigation is the only active litigation affected by this savings clause. This bill puts the Department of Justice at a disadvantage in its case against tobacco companies. These companies present a devastating product to this country. They target the younger generations because of their vulnerability to the admittedly addictive agent, nicotine and overwhelming amount of peer pressure. An RJR research planning memorandum says and I quote, ``Realistically, if our Company is to survive and prosper, over the long term we must get our share of the youth market. . . .'' A memorandum to Curtis Judge, President of Lorillard Tobacco Co. said that ``The success of NEWPORT has been fantastic during the past few years. . . . [T]he base of our business is the high school student. . . .'' Our nation's credit-worthy veterans become addicted while in the service to cigarettes. The companies themselves have admitted to the addicting qualities of nicotine. S.J. Green, BATCo Director of Research reported that ``The strong addiction to cigarette[s] removes freedom of choice from many individuals.'' Another injustice of this market is that it targets low-income areas, who traditionally have insufficient amounts of health care. In my district I have 165,000 people who live at or below the poverty level-- many of them suffer from the effects of tobacco. The American people spend $25 billion to treat tobacco-related illnesses while being given no choice whether to become addicted or not. The Department of Veterans Affairs spends over $1 billion a year treating tobacco-related illness. Therefore, it is impossible that their budget of $4 million will be used in the litigation. Most of their money goes toward treatment of people with tobacco-induced illnesses. The bill as it stands blocks the Department of Veterans Affairs from helping the Department of Justice in this lawsuit that greatly involves them. This is an injustice to the American people who expect the government to defend their right for healthy lives. I support the amendment to this bill because in 1998 the promise was made on this House floor that we would ``take all steps necessary to recover from tobacco companies the cost which would be incurred by the Department of Veterans Affairs for treatment of tobacco-related illnesses of veterans. It will delete the rider and give the veterans the chance to recover tens of billions of dollars for Veteran's Affairs' underfunded medical care. This measure helps the Department of Justice's requests pay back to the Federal Government for expenses due to the misconduct of the tobacco industry by unrestricted funding for the endeavor. It will further protect those targeted youths from being victimized for their vulnerability to addictive agents. The House should not be vulnerable to persuasion of any measure that cuts the prosecuting of those entities that pose harm to the country. We have the responsibility to protect the people from unnecessary health risks by keeping them aware of the health risks. The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate on this amendment has expired. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman). The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it. Recorded Vote Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote. A recorded vote was ordered. The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 215, noes 183, not voting 36, as follows: [Roll No. 319] AYES--215 Abercrombie Ackerman Allen Andrews Baird Baldacci Baldwin Barcia Barrett (WI) Becerra Bentsen Bereuter Berkley Berry Bilbray Bilirakis Blagojevich Blumenauer Boehlert Bonior Bono Borski Boswell Brady (PA) Brown (FL) Brown (OH) Calvert Campbell Capps Capuano Cardin Carson Castle Clay Conyers Costello Coyne Crowley Cummings Cunningham Davis (FL) Davis (IL) DeFazio DeGette Delahunt DeLauro Deutsch Dicks Dingell Doggett Dooley Doyle Dunn Edwards Ehlers Engel Eshoo Evans Farr Fattah Foley Ford Frank (MA) Franks (NJ) Frelinghuysen Frost Gallegly Ganske Gejdenson Gephardt Gilchrest Gilman Gonzalez Green (TX) Greenwood Gutierrez Hall (OH) Hansen Hastings (FL) Hinchey Hinojosa Hobson Hoeffel Holden Holt Hooley Horn Hoyer Inslee Jackson (IL) Jackson-Lee (TX) Jefferson Johnson (CT) Kanjorski Kaptur Kelly Kennedy Kildee Kilpatrick Kind (WI) King (NY) Kleczka Kucinich LaFalce LaHood Lampson Lantos Larson Lee Levin Lewis (GA) Lipinski LoBiondo Lofgren Lowey Luther Maloney (CT) Maloney (NY) Manzullo Markey Mascara Matsui McCarthy (MO) McCarthy (NY) McDermott McGovern McHugh McKeon McKinney McNulty Meehan Meek (FL) Meeks (NY) Menendez Metcalf Millender-McDonald Miller, George Minge Mink Moakley Moore Moran (VA) Morella Nadler Napolitano Neal Nethercutt Oberstar Obey Olver Ose Owens Pallone Pascrell Pastor Payne Pelosi Peterson (PA) Porter Portman Pryce (OH) Quinn Rahall Ramstad Regula Rivers Rodriguez Roemer Roukema Royce Rush Sabo Sanchez Sanders Sawyer Saxton Scarborough Schaffer Schakowsky Serrano Shays Sherman Sherwood Skelton Slaughter Smith (NJ) Snyder Stabenow Stark Strickland Stupak Tauscher Taylor (MS) Thompson (CA) Thune Thurman Traficant Turner Udall (CO) Udall (NM) Upton Velazquez Visclosky Walsh Waters Waxman Weiner Wexler Weygand Wilson Wise Wolf Woolsey Wu Young (FL) [[Page H5046]] NOES--183 Aderholt Archer Armey Baca Baker Ballenger Barr Barrett (NE) Bartlett Barton Bass Bateman Biggert Bishop Bliley Blunt Boehner Bonilla Boucher Boyd Brady (TX) Bryant Burr Burton Buyer Callahan Camp Cannon Chabot Chambliss Chenoweth-Hage Clement Clyburn Coble Collins Combest Condit Cooksey Cramer Crane Cubin Danner Davis (VA) Deal DeLay DeMint Diaz-Balart Dickey Doolittle Dreier Duncan Ehrlich Emerson English Etheridge Everett Ewing Fletcher Forbes Fossella Fowler Gibbons Gillmor Goode Goodlatte Goodling Gordon Goss Graham Granger Green (WI) Gutknecht Hall (TX) Hastings (WA) Hayes Hayworth Hefley Herger Hill (IN) Hill (MT) Hilleary Hilliard Hoekstra Hostettler Houghton Hulshof Hunter Hutchinson Hyde Isakson Jenkins John Johnson, Sam Jones (NC) Kingston Knollenberg Kolbe Largent Latham LaTourette Lewis (CA) Lewis (KY) Linder Lucas (KY) Lucas (OK) Martinez McInnis McIntyre Mica Miller (FL) Miller, Gary Mollohan Moran (KS) Murtha Ney Northup Norwood Nussle Ortiz Oxley Packard Paul Pease Peterson (MN) Petri Phelps Pickering Pickett Pitts Pombo Price (NC) Reynolds Riley Rogan Rogers Rohrabacher Ros-Lehtinen Ryan (WI) Ryun (KS) Sandlin Sanford Scott Sensenbrenner Sessions Shadegg Shaw Shimkus Shows Shuster Simpson Sisisky Skeen Smith (MI) Smith (TX) Souder Spence Spratt Stearns Stenholm Stump Sununu Sweeney Talent Tancredo Tanner Taylor (NC) Terry Thomas Thompson (MS) Thornberry Tiahrt Toomey Vitter Walden Wamp Watkins Watt (NC) Watts (OK) Weldon (FL) Weldon (PA) Weller Whitfield Wicker NOT VOTING--36 Bachus Berman Canady Clayton Coburn Cook Cox Dixon Filner Gekas Istook Johnson, E. B. Jones (OH) Kasich Klink Kuykendall Lazio Leach McCollum McCrery McIntosh Myrick Pomeroy Radanovich Rangel Reyes Rothman Roybal-Allard Salmon Smith (WA) Tauzin Tierney Towns Vento Wynn Young (AK) {time} 1019 Messrs. SKEEN, SHADEGG and HILLIARD changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.'' Mrs. BONO, Mr. PORTMAN and Mr. CALVERT changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.'' So the amendment was agreed to. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman the designee of the gentleman from Kentucky? Mr. HUTCHINSON. I am, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arkansas is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the committee for this recognition. I rise to discuss the issue of methamphetamine lab cleanup, an issue of great importance to my State of Arkansas and to the rest of rural America. Let me also thank the gentleman from Kentucky for including funds in the bill for meth lab cleanup for fiscal year 2001. This much needed appropriation bill that provides meth lab cleanup for 2001 will ensure that we do not find ourselves in a crisis situation again. As we all know, the DEA ran out of funds for this critical program in mid-March and many of us have been working to find additional fiscal year 2000 funds through a variety of sources. Unfortunately, the need is still pressing. I would like to inquire whether the gentleman from Kentucky would be willing to continue working with me and other interested Members to address the fiscal year 2000 shortfall before the end of this fiscal year. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) who has also been very active in this effort. Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arkansas for yielding, and I would like to thank him for his leadership on this issue. I would like to reinforce the importance of funding for meth lab cleanup for Wisconsin and the majority of rural America. Our local law enforcement agencies do not possess the resources to fund meth lab cleanup, and therefore we currently have two meth labs in my district that are sitting and waiting until funds can be made available from the DEA to clean them up. This presents a serious safety and environmental danger. I would also like to inquire of the gentleman from Kentucky if he will work to continue to address the shortfall in the current fiscal year for the meth lab cleanup. Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HUTCHINSON. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky. Mr. ROGERS. I thank both of the gentlemen for their leadership on this very important issue. It is a matter that we have been dealing with in our subcommittee now for some time attempting to find the funds to be able to adequately fight this battle. I will remain committed to working with them and with the Senate and the administration to resolve the fiscal year 2000 funding shortfall. Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the gentleman for that commitment and for his leadership on this issue. Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman the designee of the gentleman from Kentucky? Mr. GOODLATTE. I am, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I was going to say that I rise to do this, but I guess I will just say that I seek to engage in a colloquy with the chairman of the subcommittee. The chairman has been very diligent in his efforts to provide funding for various law enforcement needs. I greatly appreciate that. One of the areas is in the category of missing and exploited children. One of the areas that is of grave concern to me and a great many other Members of Congress is the problem of child pornography and child sexual exploitation on the Internet. It is a very, very serious problem. In the past, funds have been specifically designated for the purpose of providing funding to State and local law enforcement agencies to combat this. In last year's legislation, $6 million was so appropriated. I had intended to offer an amendment this year which provides that that $6 million or more be specifically designated for that purpose. The gentleman from Kentucky has indicated that this can be taken care of in conference and that this money will indeed ultimately be so designated. I hope to engage in a colloquy here to find out if indeed that is the case and he can indicate to me his plans for providing these funds for this specific purpose. They are a part of the, as I understand it, $19 million that is for missing and exploited children in general. At this point the chairman has not earmarked any of that money, but we are concerned that this money not go somewhere else and is provided to local law enforcement for the purpose of combating this serious problem on the Internet. Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky. Mr. ROGERS. I will continue to work with the gentleman to provide funding for this program at least at last year's level. Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman. That is very helpful. Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman the designee of the gentleman from Kentucky? Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Yes, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the gentleman from Kentucky in a colloquy. Mr. Chairman, this bill appropriates $130 million for the Department of Justice to distribute to State and local governments under the Criminal Identification Technical Improvement Act. Mr. ROGERS. If the g

Major Actions:

All articles in House section

DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001
(House of Representatives - June 23, 2000)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H5039-H5072] DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001 The SPEAKER. Pursuant to House Resolution 529 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, H.R. 4690. {time} 0904 In the Committee of the Whole Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill (H.R. 4690) making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes, with Mr. Hastings of Washington in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Thursday, June 22, 2000, the amendment by the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) had been disposed of and the bill was open for amendment from page 35, line 8, through page 35, line 14. Pursuant to the order of the House of that day, no further amendment to the bill shall be in order except pro forma amendments offered by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations or their designees for the purpose of debate and amendments printed in the Congressional Record on or before June 22, 2000, which may be offered only by the Member who caused it to be printed or his designee, shall be considered read, shall not be subject to amendment (except pro forma amendments for the purpose of debate), and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the question. Before consideration of any other amendment, it shall be in order to consider the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) to section 110, which shall be debatable only for 40 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. Amendment Offered by Mr. Waxman Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. Waxman: Page 37, line 11, after the period, insert the following: The preceding sentence shall not apply to litigation filed before January 1, 2000, that has received funding under section 109 of Public Law 103-317 (28 U.S.C. 509 note). The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, June 22, 2000, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and a Member opposed each will control 20 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman). Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes. [[Page H5040]] I am offering this amendment with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), the ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs; the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen); the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan); and the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow). This is the third time this week we have offered an amendment to an appropriations bill to allow the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Justice Department to continue their tobacco lawsuit. The first time we offered our amendment to the VA-HUD bill, we lost on a close vote of 197-207. The second time we offered the amendment, we reached an agreement with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), the subcommittee chairman, and prevailed on a voice vote. I thought that this issue had been resolved. I thought the House had determined that the veterans and America's taxpayers deserved their day in court. The Federal lawsuit would be decided by a judge and a jury in a court based on the merits of the case, not by Congress through legislative riders. Unfortunately, I was wrong. The bill before us today, the Commerce- State-Justice appropriations bill, would undo the agreement we reached on Tuesday. Once again, it contains a rider that would defund the Federal tobacco lawsuit. During the debate over the past few days, we have learned several things. First, we have learned that stopping the Federal lawsuit is unfair to veterans. In 1998, Congress made a promise to veterans when we took the funds that were directed at veterans for cigarette-related disabilities and used it for highways. Congress said, We'll go to the courts and get money from the tobacco companies. If we adopt the language in this bill without our amendment, we will be going back on this promise. This is simply wrong. That is why our amendment is strongly supported by the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, the Disabled American Veterans, and AMVETS. We have also learned that defunding the Federal lawsuit is unfair to America's seniors. Each year Medicare spends $20 billion treating tobacco-related illnesses. The Federal lawsuit could potentially recover these costs, extending the solvency of the Medicare trust fund for years. That is why our amendment is strongly supported by the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare and other seniors' organizations. In effect, we have a simple choice. We can stand with an industry that has lied to the American people for decades, or we can stand with our Nation's veterans and our senior citizens. I ask my colleagues to think about what we are going to do. We are about to take the unprecedented action of stopping the judicial process in the middle of a pending case. And we are about to take this action for an industry that is the least deserving industry in America, for an industry that has targeted our children, for an industry that manipulated nicotine to keep smokers addicted, for an industry that has deceived and lied to the public for decades. Our amendment is drawn very narrowly. It does not allow the Justice Department to seek funding from other agencies to sue the gun industry, the gambling industry, or any other industry. All our amendment says is that this new policy should not be applied retroactively to halt pending litigation that commenced in reliance on the current law. In effect, the amendment is nothing more than a savings clause that would allow the tobacco suit to continue. Our amendment raises exactly the same issue we debated on Monday and decided on Tuesday. Today, as we did on Tuesday, we should stand with our veterans and our seniors, not the tobacco companies. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman from Kentucky opposed to the amendment? Mr. ROGERS. I am, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 20 minutes. Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 7 minutes. Mr. Chairman, what this argument is about today is unlike what has been argued before in this body on this matter. This debate is about what was the intent of the Congress in 1995 when we passed the act in this bill that allowed the Department of Justice to be reimbursed from other agencies for extraordinary expensive cases. What was on the table at that time was a lawsuit by a company against the Navy when the Navy canceled the A-12 aircraft contract. It was a multibillion-dollar lawsuit. Justice came to us and said, Would you please put in your bill a provision that allows the Navy to reimburse Justice for representing it in this massive lawsuit against the government. We said, Okay, we'll do that. Never in anyone's wildest imagination on the floor of this body was it anticipated that that statute would be used by the Government to initiate lawsuits, to sue people willy-nilly. Why? Because the Justice Department has a Civil Rights Division of some 1,039 lawyers with hundreds of millions of dollars to spend in filing lawsuits. Why would they need this kind of money to file a lawsuit? No, the Congress intended when we passed that statute to enable the Justice Department to be able to represent the Government when it was sued, not when it was the suer. Now the Government has filed three of these lawsuits using this statute contrary to the intent of the Congress, thumbing its nose at the Congress and saying, We will decide how we're going to spend the money you gave us from the taxpayers. We don't care what you thought when you passed the statute. That is the attitude of the Justice Department. Since the section was enacted, so-called 109, they have received roughly $324 million in reimbursements, almost all of which has been for just two massive lawsuits, the A-12 airplane case I mentioned, and the Winstar Savings and Loan cases where Justice was defending the Government against $33 billion in claims. Clearly, section 109 is an important tool to protect the Government and the taxpayer and should stay on the books. Without it, Justice would not have been able to mount credible defenses in critical cases and the Government could have suffered billions of dollars in losses. What we do in the bill is clarify Congressional intent. We say, Look, what we meant when we gave you that authority in 1995 was to defend the Government against these massive claims, not to initiate lawsuits. And the bill does ensure that the money would be used for defensive litigation which was the justification provided by the Justice Department when it sought from us this special authority and the understanding of Congress when we provided that authority. It is the reasonable approach, and it is the right thing to do. It ensures that funding provided for other programs in this and other appropriations bills are not diverted in the future for proactive lawsuits as have been done to the tune of over $8 million so far. Nothing in this bill restricts or prevents Justice from continuing any lawsuit, ongoing or prospective. Let them do what they will. We give them hundreds of millions of dollars with 1,034 lawyers in the Civil Rights Division to pursue civil actions. Nothing in the bill would restrict or prevent that. {time} 0915 This bill contains in fact $147 million to pay for those huge numbers of lawyers within the Civil Division to carry out affirmative cases, as the government sees fit. The Waxman amendment would modify this bill, to allow the government to continue raiding the budgets of other agencies for four proactive cases that were filed about Justice just before this year and which are being paid through the inappropriate use of section 109 authority. It would prohibit the use of section 109 for proactive cases filed after the beginning of the year. In so doing, the Waxman amendment by itself acknowledges that, in fact, section 109 is for defensive purposes only. But the gentleman says we acknowledge that, but give us a break this time for all cases filed before the beginning of the year, the statute is either for defensive purposes or it is not. If it is for defensive purposes, it acknowledges the intent of the Congress in 1995 that it was for defensive purposes. [[Page H5041]] If it was for defensive purposes then, the government was wrong to use these funds to file any lawsuits since 1995, so I reject out of hand the argument that this statute ought to be modified so that we could protect and cover the rear ends of those at Justice that made the decision that was contrary to the intent of Congress, wrong and should not be rewarded, as this amendment would do by giving them an excuse, giving them an out and saying yes, it is for defensive purposes, but we are going to forgive you this time. Sorry, sorry about that. The law is the law. This was for defensive purposes, the Justice Department has violated it, and the gentleman wants to reward them on this floor, and I suggest that we shall not do that. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, support for continuing the tobacco lawsuit should not be a partisan issue, and this amendment has bipartisan support. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to one of the great bipartisan leaders in this House, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen). Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague yielding the time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this amendment, because I honestly believe in my heart of hearts that the lawsuit against tobacco must be continued. Most of us have been to Gettysburg and have walked those hallowed fields of that place, and I often marvel that so many are willing to give their lives for a cause that they believe in. What makes Gettysburg even more important it was truly the turning point of the Civil War and began the tough road to reunification of the United States. Mr. Chairman, we find ourselves in a turning point of another war, and that is the war against youth smoking. For decades, the tobacco companies have lied to us here in Congress, lied to the people of this great land and continually targeted the American children. There surely must be accountability for these actions. Many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle are naturally wary of government lawsuits and in the vast majority of the cases, I agree with them; however, I also know that my colleagues on this side of the aisle were properly incensed when the definition of the words like ``is'' were twisted to avoid responsibility. Mr. Chairman, I would say to my colleagues on this side of the aisle that the tobacco companies have consistently done the same word manipulation for decades and have consistently avoided responsibility. I believe that the time has come to demand responsibility, and this is why I am supporting this amendment. I also know that many of my colleagues are concerned over the potential for future abuse of this authority, including the possibility that this or another administration may follow the advice of gun control extremists and pursue a lawsuit against the firearms industry. To those who share my concern on that issue, I implore them to read this amendment, it very clearly prohibits any future use of section 109 authority for such purposes. The amendment allows only one exemption, the tobacco lawsuit. This amendment assures that the executive branch cannot file any lawsuits that were not already active and receiving section 109 funds before the start of this year. There is only one lawsuit that fits that description, the tobacco lawsuit and all other lawsuits are prohibited. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this meritorious amendment. It is important to the health of our children and the future health of our grandchildren. Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes). Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, there is strong bipartisan opposition to this bill and I absolutely recognize my friends' right to take their position, but let me focus on the facts for a moment. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. This amendment jeopardizes the appropriations authority granted to Congress by the Constitution, and it will set a precedent that the administration, the President will determine spending instead of the Congress. I ask my colleagues to consider the precedent that this amendment will set with respect to our authority in Congress to determine the spending levels for our country. Attorney General Reno herself testified before the Senate that the Federal Government did not have the authority to bring the very lawsuit that my colleagues are advocating today. The law says the suit cannot be won, the money will be wasted, money that should be spent on veterans health care. In 1997, again, I say Ms. Reno testified that there was no legal basis to recover. The States have the authority and have a recovery of $246 billion that will be jeopardized by this amendment. The White House has failed to enact its desired 55 cent per pack Federal cigarette tax increase. The Attorney General shamelessly files the very same suit she explicitly admitted was groundless. This is ridiculous. Tobacco manufacturers never dupe the Federal Government. Washington has known for decades that smoking is dangerous. Since 1964, every pack sold in the United States has carried a mandated label warning of the risk of smoking. Nobody wants people to be harmed by smoking, especially no one wants children smoking, nor can Washington claim that it somehow acquired individual smokers right to sue. In 1997, the Department of Veterans Affairs rejected on the grounds that veterans assumed risk of smoking, a claim allegedly by former members of the Armed Forces in Washington freely distributed cigarettes 10 years after placing warning labels on the packages. Mr. Chairman, in 1947 a law was granted saying the Supreme Court in the United States may sue third parties to recoup health care costs but this is about insurance companies saving veterans health care money. To sum up, history and legal precedent do not support this amendment. The law and history say we will lose, save this money for health care, for veterans and any other group supported by this Congress. Strongly oppose the Waxman amendment on legal ground. Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the veterans organizations support our amendment, because they want that money to be brought back into veterans health care. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans) one of the great champions on behalf of veterans in this institution, and the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Veterans Affairs. Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, this week the House passed an amendment to the VA-HUD appropriations bill that enables the Department of Justice to pursue its pending litigation against the tobacco industry. This lawsuit seeks to recover billions of dollars spent by the VA and other Federal agencies to treat tobacco-related illnesses. A rider in this appropriations bill which would block the Justice Department from accepting these funds is a mirror image of the VA-HUD rider. The amendment I join with the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and my other colleagues in supporting today simply allows the wheels of justice to move forward. Mr. Chairman, there is something terribly wrong with the leadership of this body. During the last Congress, despite overwhelming evidence that tobacco-related illnesses are linked to nicotine addiction developed during the military service, the Republican leadership of the House effectively denied veterans the opportunity to seek legitimate compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs. Instead, this House passed a sense of Congress Resolution that the Attorney General and I quoted ``should take all steps necessary to recover from tobacco companies amounts corresponding to the costs which have been incurred by the VA for treatment of tobacco-related illness of veterans.'' Mr. Chairman, it seems our leadership would seek to walk away from this commitment strangling even the hope of a fair settlement from the big tobacco companies for the VA medical [[Page H5042]] care system. Passing this appropriation with the proposed rider will prevent Justice from using funds in pursuit of this lawsuit would be nothing less than shameful. If this House is not totally beholden to the tobacco industry, it would adopt this amendment. It will enable legal proceedings to go forward, and it will allow the outcome of lawsuits to be properly determined in court, not here on the floor of the House. Earlier this week, an open letter was distributed to Members of Congress by four major veterans service organizations, AMVETS, Disabled American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States. Veterans have made it clear that they support tobacco litigation that could allow a fair settlement to support VA's treatment of thousands of veterans' tobacco-related illnesses. That is why the veterans organizations who coauthor the independent budget have strongly endorsed our amendment. Let us keep our promise to America's veterans and let this lawsuit move forward on its own merit. In the name of justice, please support the Waxman-Evans amendment. Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lewis). (Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, the Federal tobacco lawsuit is bad public policy and a waste of taxpayer dollars. The case is not about the law, but about the Federal Government extorting money from an industry that it does not like. Which industry will be the next victim of this punitive action? The tobacco industry, in accordance with the terms of its 1998 settlement with the States, has changed its marketing, advertising, and business practices. The industry is also paying the States billions of dollars. Now the Justice Department wants a share of this revenue stream for the Federal Government and is willing to further sidestep to try to get it. The Justice Department needs to stop stealing veterans health care funds to pay for its baseless lawsuit. This suit claims the Federal Government and the public were deceived about the health risks of tobacco products. The same Federal Government that claims it was deceived has required health warnings on tobacco products since the 1960s. The Surgeon General's 1964 report details the risks of tobacco use. The American people are not as clueless as this lawsuit claims, people know the health risks associated with use of tobacco products. It is absurd to claim ignorance on this point. Adult consumers have the right to make risk judgments and choose the legal products they use. They also need to take personal responsibility for those choices. No Federal law gives the government authority to collect Medicare funds as proposed in this lawsuit. Mr. Chairman, 3 years ago, Attorney General Reno testified to the Senate that no Federal cause of action existed for Medicare and Medicaid claims; suddenly she has changed her tune under pressure from the White House. The Justice Department on the same day it announced the civil lawsuit ended its 5-year investigation of the tobacco industry without making any criminal charges. Last year the Congressional Research Service concluded that with a full accounting of costs of lifetime government-funded health care and benefits for tobacco users and tobacco excise taxes, the Federal Government actually nets $35 billion per year. There are not costs for a Federal Government to recover. It is already making money off of tobacco use and this administration only wants more. The absurdity of this legislation by litigation aside, one issue should be clear to everyone today, veterans health benefits are not intended to pay trial lawyers in a politically motivated lawsuit. This is not a rider. This is not special treatment. This is Congress carrying out its role in appropriating how tax dollars are to be spent. Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske), a respected physician Member of the House, one of the great leaders on public health issues. (Mr. GANSKE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Chairman, I have a great deal of respect for the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), as well as the chairman of the subcommittee; but we disagree. As a physician on this Floor, I have been asked many medical questions related to diseases caused by tobacco that is affecting members and their families. Tobacco is an addicting substance that causes lethal disease. It certainly has not spared our colleagues or their families. Big tobacco is trying to stymie a Federal lawsuit that seeks to recover costs of treatment of the tobacco-related diseases that the Federal taxpayers have subsidized. This includes the care of Members of Congress and their families, as well as other Federal employees, veterans, and Medicare beneficiaries. {time} 0930 The States recover damages against big tobacco based on their share of Medicaid. The Federal Government should too. The VA spends $4 billion annually on treatment of tobacco-related illness. Medicare spends $20.5 billion per year on tobacco-relayed illnesses. Big tobacco has known about the addictive lethal consequences of tobacco for a long time. Their CEOs committed perjury in testimony before Congress. Did those CEOs get punished for lying under oath? We did not even give them a slap on the wrist, and their deceitful lives have cost lives. The Waxman-Hansen amendment is supported by veterans groups, senior organizations, and practically all the public health groups. Mr. Speaker, this vote is about one thing: Are you for big tobacco, or are you for the American taxpayer who has paid the bill for big tobacco too long? Big tobacco has spread a lot of money around Capitol Hill to try to get Congress to stop the Department of Justice lawsuit. Well, here is your chance to be with the AMVETS, with the VFW, with all of these health groups, and, most importantly, with the taxpayers of this country. Vote for this amendment. Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger). Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, as a veteran of World War II, I remember all those great wonderful cigarettes that Uncle Sam gave me when I was in the service. I would like to say Ms. Reno should have tons of money because of those many things that everybody requested that she investigate but she never has. Let me just say I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that to recover under secondary payer provisions, Washington must show that the sales of tobacco are in and of themselves wrongful, and since the Feds have consistently regulated, subsidized, promoted and fiscally profited from tobacco products, while fully aware of the plant's health risk, such a showing would seem difficult, unless Washington admits being complicit to the wrongdoing; and a basic common law rule, my understanding is, is that one accomplice cannot sue another. So it seems to me that money spent on this effort is an absolute waste on a cause that is going to lose, and, besides that, I think Mrs. Reno has tons of money that we begged her to use in investigating some of the White House situations, and she never has. Why should she need more money? Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), a Member who is noted for his interest in fiscal responsibility and has a unique perspective on the promise made to the veterans a couple of years ago in the transportation bill. (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Waxman amendment for reasons of equity, for reasons of futility, and for reasons of constitutionality. The equities are obvious here. If the men and women who served in the [[Page H5043]] Armed Forces of this country contracted a disease related to tobacco when they served in those Armed Forces, and the country is paying for the care of those diseases in the form of VA health benefits, we ought to recover those costs from those who caused the disease in the tobacco industry. It is a matter of simple equity, and that is why the veterans organizations and the health organizations support this. We want to avoid futility. Earlier this week we passed an amendment on this floor that said that the Veterans Administration could free up administrative expenses, not health expenses, but administrative expenses, and send them over to the Justice Department to help pay for the cost of this suit. If we do not pass the Waxman amendment here, that effort would have been futile, because we will undo the result of that amendment. So we would be having the VA sending money over that the Justice Department could not use. That is not a mistake, but it would be a mistake to do that. Finally, there is a matter of constitutionality. I think it is unprecedented and terribly unwise for Members of the legislative branch to interfere and intervene in ongoing litigation brought by the Department of Justice. It is the worst kind of second guessing. It is the worst kind of abandonment of separation of powers. The Justice Department has made a decision, in my judgment a wise decision, at our direction, to initiate complex litigation to recover these costs. For us to intervene at this point, second guess at this point, is unwise and may in fact be unconstitutional. Let us let this litigation go forward. Let us let the taxpayers and the veterans of this country have their day in court. Let us join together and pass the Waxman amendment. Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property of the Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, it appears that the Attorney General and the Justice Department by way of this amendment is again attempting to insert the tobacco industry smack dab in the bull's eye of the target, and I guess that the command will be ``fire when ready.'' The tobacco industry has become the convenient and consistent whipping boy in this Congress as long as I have been here; and with each session, the opponents appear to grow more vocal and more determined to drive the final death knell into the coffin of tobacco. Nine or 10 years ago, and I told the chairman this some time ago, I had the privilege of going through the Lorillard plant in my district; and what I learned as a result of that visit that day was the dollars in taxes that they pay, local, State and Federal. I was educated. The Federal Government, Mr. Chairman, as you know, has consistently regulated, subsidized, promoted and fiscally profited from tobacco. If we keep fooling around with this, we are going to drive the tobacco industry into the coffin, and then the coffin finally into the ground, and those coffers that realize millions and millions of dollars directly from tobacco will either dry up, or, in the alternative, we will have to find other sources of revenue, and then you will start hearing people kicking and screaming and crying, what happened to the tobacco money? Well, the tobacco money was gone because of the consistent buggy whipping that has been on across their backs emanating from this very Chamber, and one of these days, Mr. Chairman, it is going to come back to haunt us. I will admit, I do not come to the well completely objective, because I represent growers and manufacturers; but let us be careful as we go about this. Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro). Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Waxman amendment. America's veterans have put their lives on the line for their Nation, and big tobacco should be held accountable for what they did to our veterans. Allowing the Justice Department to continue its suit against the tobacco industry will return millions of dollars in needed funding to the veterans health care system. That is fitting, considering the number of our Nation's veterans that now suffer from tobacco-related illnesses, that to this day, I might add, the tobacco industry denies are as a result of cigarettes. Who supports this amendment? The American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids. That is who supports it. Let us take a look at who opposes it. Philip Morris and the big tobacco companies, the folks who stood before the committee with their hands raised and talked about their product as not being addictive. That is what they said. That is what they told the American public. The group that tells us that when today's smokers die, that the next group of folks they go to, ``their replacement smokers,'' are 12-year-old kids. Those are their words, ``replacement smokers,'' 12-year-old kids. Mr. Chairman, it is time for big tobacco to pay the price for the damage that they have done. We should hold them accountable for their lies. Support veterans health care, protect our children from the tobacco industry's predatory practices. I urge Members to support the Waxman amendment today. Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to note the contribution that the gentlewoman from Connecticut has made as a leader on this issue in the Committee on Appropriations and commend her for her statement. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), who has been so involved in public health issues. (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, once again it appears that some individuals on the other side of the aisle would put politics before people, particularly our children. If the tobacco companies have nothing to hide, then why do they care if we have a lawsuit? Well, since the landmark State lawsuit settlement in 1998, tobacco companies have actually increased the amount of advertising aimed at our children. They lure our children with glossy ads. They become addicted to nicotine. It leaves millions of Americans sick and dying, while the tobacco companies continue to rake in the profits and the taxpayers of this Nation pick up the tab for the health care. Mr. Chairman, the Justice Department must have the funding to investigate big tobacco. I encourage my colleagues, vote for the Waxman amendment. Our children's lives depend on it. Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my good friend, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), who has been very involved in health issues and who before coming to the Congress was in the nursing profession. Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Waxman-Hansen amendment. I am outraged that the bill before us today would, in effect, halt the Justice Department's action to hold tobacco companies accountable. This rider would undo an agreement made just 2 days ago here on the floor of this House. That agreement would allow the Veterans Department to support DOJ's litigation. Mr. Chairman, this rider would have the effect of giving the tobacco companies immunity. It gives them a free pass by hamstringing Justice's ability to go after them in the courts. Remember, the tobacco industry produces an addictive product that, when used as directed and intended, contributes to the death of 300,000 to 400,000 people a year, injuring hundreds of thousands more. This industry has systematically attempted to lure children to start smoking and lied about it for years. It has manipulated the levels of nicotine to increase the addictiveness of cigarettes and lied about it for years. Tobacco companies deserve no special treatment. They deserve to be held accountable, and that is what passing the Waxman-Hansen amendment would allow, simple justice. I urge support for this amendment. Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is [[Page H5044]] remaining and who has the right to close. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) has 6 minutes remaining, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) has 3 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Kentucky has the right to close. Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder), another physician in the House of Representatives. {time} 0945 Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Chairman, as a family doctor and a Marine veteran, I have to ask myself now, why are the tobacco companies and their allies in Congress fighting this amendment, fighting this lawsuit in this way. Number one, they know the health costs that their product has caused, and those of us that have been in medicine have seen the lung cancer and the heart disease and the sexual impotence and all of those other problems; and we have seen those health costs. The tobacco companies know they lied to this Congress and lied to the American people about the effects of their product and the addictive quality. Finally, the tobacco companies know they targeted our men in uniform, those of us who used to open the C-rations and get the packs of cigarettes in there; we know we were targeted as we look back in time. That information would come out in this lawsuit, how they preyed on our young men, 17 and 18 and 19 and 20 years old, addicted them to this product, at a time when we were asking them to go into combat for their country in World War II and the Korean War and the Vietnam War. That is what this lawsuit is about, and they know what it is about. They do not want to have to defend in front of a jury, having targeted those young men. Support the Waxman amendment. Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), one of the leaders of the House of Representatives. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for his outstanding leadership on this very important issue. Mr. Chairman, I rise as a member of the Committee on Appropriations to point out a certain irony here. We were told on our committee that there should be no riders in our appropriations bill this year; and yet the majority is going to great lengths to include this very dangerous rider in this particular bill. The Attorney General has stated that if this rider is there, this bill that blocks funding for the lawsuits is enacted into law, we would have no ability to continue the litigation in the tobacco suits. Mr. Chairman, our colleagues have eloquently spoken to the $90 billion cost, both public and private, to our economy and the many diseases that are caused by tobacco. I want to dwell for a half a minute on our children. Approximately 5 million American children smoke. Every day, 3,000 more children become regular smokers. One out of three of these children will eventually die from tobacco-related causes. The market for cigarettes is maintained by marketing products to young people who can replace those smokers who die or quit. As a result of these tactics, the tobacco industry creates a lifetime of health problems and health costs for these children, and they should be held accountable. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will strengthen veterans' health care, and I urge our colleagues to support it. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Waxman/Evans/Hansen/ Meehan/Stabenow amendment. This amendment will allow the Department of Justice to pursue its lawsuit against the tobacco companies and seek to recover billions of dollars in health care expenditures that tobacco has cost federal taxpayers. The Attorney General has stated that if the rider in this bill that blocks funding for the lawsuit is enacted into law, ``We would have no ability to continue our litigation.'' This vote boils down to a simple choice: Will we vote to protect taxpayers and allow them to have their day in court? Or will we vote to protect Big Tobacco and once again allow the tobacco companies to escape legal responsibility for all the harm they have caused. Tobacco use is the leading cause of premature death in the United States. Over 430,000 premature deaths each year are a result of smoking related illnesses including chronic lung disease, coronary heart disease, and stroke as well as cancer of the lungs, larynx, esophagus, mouth, and bladder. This accounts for one out of five deaths, and twice the number of deaths caused by AIDS, alcohol, motor vehicles, homicide, drugs, and suicide combined. Smoking causes or contributes to a variety of debilitating physical and medical problems. Chronic coughing, emphysema, and bronchitis are products of smoking, and smokers are more susceptible to influenza. Smokers are more likely to suffer from periodontal disease. Smoking can also cause the early onset of menopause among women, incontinence, and reduced fertility, and increases the risk of impotence by 50 percent. Approximately 5 million American children smoke. And each day, another 3,000 children become regular smokers. One out of every three of these children will eventually die from tobacco-related causes. The market for cigarettes is maintained by marketing tobacco products to young people who can replace older smokers who die or quit. As a result of these tactics, the tobacco industry creates a lifetime of health care problems and health care costs for these children, and they should be held accountable. In addition to recovery of costs, this lawsuit seeks injunctive relief to stop the tobacco companies from marketing to children and engaging in other deceptive and illegal practices. Tobacco-related illnesses cost the federal taxpayer approximately $25 billion a year, excluding the federal share of Medicaid. The Medicare program pays $20.5 billion annually to treat tobacco-related illnesses; the Veterans Administration pays $4 billion; the Department of Defense pays $1.6 billion; and the Indian Health Service pays $300 million. In addition, tobacco-related health care costs the Medicaid program nearly $17 billion a year, of which federal taxpayers pay nearly $10 billion. Overall, public and private payments for tobacco-related care total approximately $90 billion each year. Any recovery of Medicare costs from this litigation help would be deposited in the Medicare trust fund. If the lawsuit is successful, these dollars could add years to the solvency of Medicare or fund a prescription drug benefit for seniors. Veterans medical care would be strengthened as will. Voting for this amendment is the right thing to do for seniors, veterans, kids, and taxpayers. I urge my colleagues to support the Waxman/Evans/Hansen/Meehan/Stabenow amendment. Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of our time. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) has made the point very clearly that this is not about other lawsuits, it is about the tobacco lawsuit alone. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) and the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) and others who, from a medical perspective, have told us how important it is to pursue recovery for health care services. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans) has pointed out that for the veterans, we made a promise to them, we should not betray them. We should keep that promise to reach out and get funds for veterans health care. This lawsuit against tobacco should be permitted to proceed. We should not defund it through a rider on an appropriations bill. Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to vote for this amendment. It is the right thing to do. Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of our time. (Mr. ROGERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, contrary to what we have heard, this amendment and this debate is not about whether one likes or believes in smoking, or whether it is good or bad for us. That is not the issue here. The issue is not whether this lawsuit has merits or not. That is what we have heard here, arguing the merits or demerits of the lawsuit. It has nothing to do with that. The question here is whether or not the Justice Department violated the law itself in filing the lawsuit. Last year, for the first time that I have ever recalled, Justice asked the Congress for money to file a specific lawsuit. The Congress said no; the money was denied. Justice then secretly went to three agencies and said, give us the money to file this lawsuit. They said, wait a minute, where is your authority for that? They said, well, look at section 109 of the 1995 State Commerce-Justice bill where it says that agencies can reimburse the Justice Department for representing them in court, and they dragged the money out of those agencies and filed this lawsuit. Well, that statute that they are talking about is the crux of what we are [[Page H5045]] talking about here today. That statute merely says that the Government can be represented in court when it is sued. That was the intent of the Congress; no to be the suer. No one told the Congress that they had done this. We had to find it out on our own, and we did. So the Department of Justice, the place supposedly where the Nation's morals are protected, the place where moral authority resides in this government, if anywhere, itself is the one that is thwarting the will of the Congress; that is, twisting words for its own purposes, that is clearly violating the intent of the Congress in passing the act in the first place. Why was it passed in the first place? The Government was sued, a huge multibillion dollar suit by the contractor for the Navy Department when we canceled the A-12 aircraft contract. In 1995, Justice says, please, Congress, help us. Allow the Defense Department to pay us back for representing them in defending this lawsuit, and we said, we think that is a legitimate purpose, and we wrote it into our bill. That is the statute they are trying to use. Mr. Chairman, we all know, my colleagues know that that statute is for defending the Government, not suing, willy-nilly. Why? Because we provided in this bill $147 million for them to bring lawsuits; 1,034 lawyers we hire there to file lawsuits. We are paying those lawyers to file lawsuits. This statute is for defending the Government, not suing. And yet, they would have us believe that this great moral authority at the Justice Department is right. I say to my colleagues, the question here is not the merits of the lawsuit or any other lawsuit, the question here is the merits of the morality at the Justice Department. Does the end justify the means? They say yes; I say no. Is this a nation of laws or of men? I say laws, and the Congress better say laws. They are taking your prerogative here down there and they are using it as they choose. I say to my colleagues, reject the Justice Department's grab of other agencies' money, but more importantly, the Justice Department's seizure of power away from the Congress. Never was it intended in this Congress in the passage of this statute that it was to be funding lawsuits filed by the Government. No one ever anticipated that or thought about it when we passed the act. The intent of the Congress is being clarified in our bill, and that is, this statute is for defensive purposes only. Reject the Waxman amendment that would legitimize and reward a Justice Department that has seized your prerogative and is acting like they are the law themselves and we do not matter. Well, Mr. Chairman, the end does not justify the these means. I urge my colleagues to tell the Justice Department to obey the law. Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the Waxman-Evans-Hansen-Meehan-Stabenow amendment. This amendment would restore the permission of the Justice Department to use section 109 to receive funding from client agencies interested in aiding them in the tobacco litigation. The federal tobacco litigation is the only active litigation affected by this savings clause. This bill puts the Department of Justice at a disadvantage in its case against tobacco companies. These companies present a devastating product to this country. They target the younger generations because of their vulnerability to the admittedly addictive agent, nicotine and overwhelming amount of peer pressure. An RJR research planning memorandum says and I quote, ``Realistically, if our Company is to survive and prosper, over the long term we must get our share of the youth market. . . .'' A memorandum to Curtis Judge, President of Lorillard Tobacco Co. said that ``The success of NEWPORT has been fantastic during the past few years. . . . [T]he base of our business is the high school student. . . .'' Our nation's credit-worthy veterans become addicted while in the service to cigarettes. The companies themselves have admitted to the addicting qualities of nicotine. S.J. Green, BATCo Director of Research reported that ``The strong addiction to cigarette[s] removes freedom of choice from many individuals.'' Another injustice of this market is that it targets low-income areas, who traditionally have insufficient amounts of health care. In my district I have 165,000 people who live at or below the poverty level-- many of them suffer from the effects of tobacco. The American people spend $25 billion to treat tobacco-related illnesses while being given no choice whether to become addicted or not. The Department of Veterans Affairs spends over $1 billion a year treating tobacco-related illness. Therefore, it is impossible that their budget of $4 million will be used in the litigation. Most of their money goes toward treatment of people with tobacco-induced illnesses. The bill as it stands blocks the Department of Veterans Affairs from helping the Department of Justice in this lawsuit that greatly involves them. This is an injustice to the American people who expect the government to defend their right for healthy lives. I support the amendment to this bill because in 1998 the promise was made on this House floor that we would ``take all steps necessary to recover from tobacco companies the cost which would be incurred by the Department of Veterans Affairs for treatment of tobacco-related illnesses of veterans. It will delete the rider and give the veterans the chance to recover tens of billions of dollars for Veteran's Affairs' underfunded medical care. This measure helps the Department of Justice's requests pay back to the Federal Government for expenses due to the misconduct of the tobacco industry by unrestricted funding for the endeavor. It will further protect those targeted youths from being victimized for their vulnerability to addictive agents. The House should not be vulnerable to persuasion of any measure that cuts the prosecuting of those entities that pose harm to the country. We have the responsibility to protect the people from unnecessary health risks by keeping them aware of the health risks. The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate on this amendment has expired. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman). The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it. Recorded Vote Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote. A recorded vote was ordered. The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 215, noes 183, not voting 36, as follows: [Roll No. 319] AYES--215 Abercrombie Ackerman Allen Andrews Baird Baldacci Baldwin Barcia Barrett (WI) Becerra Bentsen Bereuter Berkley Berry Bilbray Bilirakis Blagojevich Blumenauer Boehlert Bonior Bono Borski Boswell Brady (PA) Brown (FL) Brown (OH) Calvert Campbell Capps Capuano Cardin Carson Castle Clay Conyers Costello Coyne Crowley Cummings Cunningham Davis (FL) Davis (IL) DeFazio DeGette Delahunt DeLauro Deutsch Dicks Dingell Doggett Dooley Doyle Dunn Edwards Ehlers Engel Eshoo Evans Farr Fattah Foley Ford Frank (MA) Franks (NJ) Frelinghuysen Frost Gallegly Ganske Gejdenson Gephardt Gilchrest Gilman Gonzalez Green (TX) Greenwood Gutierrez Hall (OH) Hansen Hastings (FL) Hinchey Hinojosa Hobson Hoeffel Holden Holt Hooley Horn Hoyer Inslee Jackson (IL) Jackson-Lee (TX) Jefferson Johnson (CT) Kanjorski Kaptur Kelly Kennedy Kildee Kilpatrick Kind (WI) King (NY) Kleczka Kucinich LaFalce LaHood Lampson Lantos Larson Lee Levin Lewis (GA) Lipinski LoBiondo Lofgren Lowey Luther Maloney (CT) Maloney (NY) Manzullo Markey Mascara Matsui McCarthy (MO) McCarthy (NY) McDermott McGovern McHugh McKeon McKinney McNulty Meehan Meek (FL) Meeks (NY) Menendez Metcalf Millender-McDonald Miller, George Minge Mink Moakley Moore Moran (VA) Morella Nadler Napolitano Neal Nethercutt Oberstar Obey Olver Ose Owens Pallone Pascrell Pastor Payne Pelosi Peterson (PA) Porter Portman Pryce (OH) Quinn Rahall Ramstad Regula Rivers Rodriguez Roemer Roukema Royce Rush Sabo Sanchez Sanders Sawyer Saxton Scarborough Schaffer Schakowsky Serrano Shays Sherman Sherwood Skelton Slaughter Smith (NJ) Snyder Stabenow Stark Strickland Stupak Tauscher Taylor (MS) Thompson (CA) Thune Thurman Traficant Turner Udall (CO) Udall (NM) Upton Velazquez Visclosky Walsh Waters Waxman Weiner Wexler Weygand Wilson Wise Wolf Woolsey Wu Young (FL) [[Page H5046]] NOES--183 Aderholt Archer Armey Baca Baker Ballenger Barr Barrett (NE) Bartlett Barton Bass Bateman Biggert Bishop Bliley Blunt Boehner Bonilla Boucher Boyd Brady (TX) Bryant Burr Burton Buyer Callahan Camp Cannon Chabot Chambliss Chenoweth-Hage Clement Clyburn Coble Collins Combest Condit Cooksey Cramer Crane Cubin Danner Davis (VA) Deal DeLay DeMint Diaz-Balart Dickey Doolittle Dreier Duncan Ehrlich Emerson English Etheridge Everett Ewing Fletcher Forbes Fossella Fowler Gibbons Gillmor Goode Goodlatte Goodling Gordon Goss Graham Granger Green (WI) Gutknecht Hall (TX) Hastings (WA) Hayes Hayworth Hefley Herger Hill (IN) Hill (MT) Hilleary Hilliard Hoekstra Hostettler Houghton Hulshof Hunter Hutchinson Hyde Isakson Jenkins John Johnson, Sam Jones (NC) Kingston Knollenberg Kolbe Largent Latham LaTourette Lewis (CA) Lewis (KY) Linder Lucas (KY) Lucas (OK) Martinez McInnis McIntyre Mica Miller (FL) Miller, Gary Mollohan Moran (KS) Murtha Ney Northup Norwood Nussle Ortiz Oxley Packard Paul Pease Peterson (MN) Petri Phelps Pickering Pickett Pitts Pombo Price (NC) Reynolds Riley Rogan Rogers Rohrabacher Ros-Lehtinen Ryan (WI) Ryun (KS) Sandlin Sanford Scott Sensenbrenner Sessions Shadegg Shaw Shimkus Shows Shuster Simpson Sisisky Skeen Smith (MI) Smith (TX) Souder Spence Spratt Stearns Stenholm Stump Sununu Sweeney Talent Tancredo Tanner Taylor (NC) Terry Thomas Thompson (MS) Thornberry Tiahrt Toomey Vitter Walden Wamp Watkins Watt (NC) Watts (OK) Weldon (FL) Weldon (PA) Weller Whitfield Wicker NOT VOTING--36 Bachus Berman Canady Clayton Coburn Cook Cox Dixon Filner Gekas Istook Johnson, E. B. Jones (OH) Kasich Klink Kuykendall Lazio Leach McCollum McCrery McIntosh Myrick Pomeroy Radanovich Rangel Reyes Rothman Roybal-Allard Salmon Smith (WA) Tauzin Tierney Towns Vento Wynn Young (AK) {time} 1019 Messrs. SKEEN, SHADEGG and HILLIARD changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.'' Mrs. BONO, Mr. PORTMAN and Mr. CALVERT changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.'' So the amendment was agreed to. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman the designee of the gentleman from Kentucky? Mr. HUTCHINSON. I am, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arkansas is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the committee for this recognition. I rise to discuss the issue of methamphetamine lab cleanup, an issue of great importance to my State of Arkansas and to the rest of rural America. Let me also thank the gentleman from Kentucky for including funds in the bill for meth lab cleanup for fiscal year 2001. This much needed appropriation bill that provides meth lab cleanup for 2001 will ensure that we do not find ourselves in a crisis situation again. As we all know, the DEA ran out of funds for this critical program in mid-March and many of us have been working to find additional fiscal year 2000 funds through a variety of sources. Unfortunately, the need is still pressing. I would like to inquire whether the gentleman from Kentucky would be willing to continue working with me and other interested Members to address the fiscal year 2000 shortfall before the end of this fiscal year. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) who has also been very active in this effort. Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arkansas for yielding, and I would like to thank him for his leadership on this issue. I would like to reinforce the importance of funding for meth lab cleanup for Wisconsin and the majority of rural America. Our local law enforcement agencies do not possess the resources to fund meth lab cleanup, and therefore we currently have two meth labs in my district that are sitting and waiting until funds can be made available from the DEA to clean them up. This presents a serious safety and environmental danger. I would also like to inquire of the gentleman from Kentucky if he will work to continue to address the shortfall in the current fiscal year for the meth lab cleanup. Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HUTCHINSON. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky. Mr. ROGERS. I thank both of the gentlemen for their leadership on this very important issue. It is a matter that we have been dealing with in our subcommittee now for some time attempting to find the funds to be able to adequately fight this battle. I will remain committed to working with them and with the Senate and the administration to resolve the fiscal year 2000 funding shortfall. Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the gentleman for that commitment and for his leadership on this issue. Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman the designee of the gentleman from Kentucky? Mr. GOODLATTE. I am, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I was going to say that I rise to do this, but I guess I will just say that I seek to engage in a colloquy with the chairman of the subcommittee. The chairman has been very diligent in his efforts to provide funding for various law enforcement needs. I greatly appreciate that. One of the areas is in the category of missing and exploited children. One of the areas that is of grave concern to me and a great many other Members of Congress is the problem of child pornography and child sexual exploitation on the Internet. It is a very, very serious problem. In the past, funds have been specifically designated for the purpose of providing funding to State and local law enforcement agencies to combat this. In last year's legislation, $6 million was so appropriated. I had intended to offer an amendment this year which provides that that $6 million or more be specifically designated for that purpose. The gentleman from Kentucky has indicated that this can be taken care of in conference and that this money will indeed ultimately be so designated. I hope to engage in a colloquy here to find out if indeed that is the case and he can indicate to me his plans for providing these funds for this specific purpose. They are a part of the, as I understand it, $19 million that is for missing and exploited children in general. At this point the chairman has not earmarked any of that money, but we are concerned that this money not go somewhere else and is provided to local law enforcement for the purpose of combating this serious problem on the Internet. Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky. Mr. ROGERS. I will continue to work with the gentleman to provide funding for this program at least at last year's level. Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman. That is very helpful. Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman the designee of the gentleman from Kentucky? Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Yes, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the gentleman from Kentucky in a colloquy. Mr. Chairman, this bill appropriates $130 million for the Department of Justice to distribute to State and local governments under the Criminal Identification Technical Improvement Act. Mr. ROGERS

Summary:

All articles in House section

DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001
(House of Representatives - June 23, 2000)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H5039-H5072] DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001 The SPEAKER. Pursuant to House Resolution 529 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, H.R. 4690. {time} 0904 In the Committee of the Whole Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill (H.R. 4690) making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes, with Mr. Hastings of Washington in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Thursday, June 22, 2000, the amendment by the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) had been disposed of and the bill was open for amendment from page 35, line 8, through page 35, line 14. Pursuant to the order of the House of that day, no further amendment to the bill shall be in order except pro forma amendments offered by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations or their designees for the purpose of debate and amendments printed in the Congressional Record on or before June 22, 2000, which may be offered only by the Member who caused it to be printed or his designee, shall be considered read, shall not be subject to amendment (except pro forma amendments for the purpose of debate), and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the question. Before consideration of any other amendment, it shall be in order to consider the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) to section 110, which shall be debatable only for 40 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. Amendment Offered by Mr. Waxman Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. Waxman: Page 37, line 11, after the period, insert the following: The preceding sentence shall not apply to litigation filed before January 1, 2000, that has received funding under section 109 of Public Law 103-317 (28 U.S.C. 509 note). The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, June 22, 2000, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and a Member opposed each will control 20 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman). Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes. [[Page H5040]] I am offering this amendment with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), the ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs; the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen); the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan); and the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow). This is the third time this week we have offered an amendment to an appropriations bill to allow the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Justice Department to continue their tobacco lawsuit. The first time we offered our amendment to the VA-HUD bill, we lost on a close vote of 197-207. The second time we offered the amendment, we reached an agreement with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), the subcommittee chairman, and prevailed on a voice vote. I thought that this issue had been resolved. I thought the House had determined that the veterans and America's taxpayers deserved their day in court. The Federal lawsuit would be decided by a judge and a jury in a court based on the merits of the case, not by Congress through legislative riders. Unfortunately, I was wrong. The bill before us today, the Commerce- State-Justice appropriations bill, would undo the agreement we reached on Tuesday. Once again, it contains a rider that would defund the Federal tobacco lawsuit. During the debate over the past few days, we have learned several things. First, we have learned that stopping the Federal lawsuit is unfair to veterans. In 1998, Congress made a promise to veterans when we took the funds that were directed at veterans for cigarette-related disabilities and used it for highways. Congress said, We'll go to the courts and get money from the tobacco companies. If we adopt the language in this bill without our amendment, we will be going back on this promise. This is simply wrong. That is why our amendment is strongly supported by the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, the Disabled American Veterans, and AMVETS. We have also learned that defunding the Federal lawsuit is unfair to America's seniors. Each year Medicare spends $20 billion treating tobacco-related illnesses. The Federal lawsuit could potentially recover these costs, extending the solvency of the Medicare trust fund for years. That is why our amendment is strongly supported by the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare and other seniors' organizations. In effect, we have a simple choice. We can stand with an industry that has lied to the American people for decades, or we can stand with our Nation's veterans and our senior citizens. I ask my colleagues to think about what we are going to do. We are about to take the unprecedented action of stopping the judicial process in the middle of a pending case. And we are about to take this action for an industry that is the least deserving industry in America, for an industry that has targeted our children, for an industry that manipulated nicotine to keep smokers addicted, for an industry that has deceived and lied to the public for decades. Our amendment is drawn very narrowly. It does not allow the Justice Department to seek funding from other agencies to sue the gun industry, the gambling industry, or any other industry. All our amendment says is that this new policy should not be applied retroactively to halt pending litigation that commenced in reliance on the current law. In effect, the amendment is nothing more than a savings clause that would allow the tobacco suit to continue. Our amendment raises exactly the same issue we debated on Monday and decided on Tuesday. Today, as we did on Tuesday, we should stand with our veterans and our seniors, not the tobacco companies. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman from Kentucky opposed to the amendment? Mr. ROGERS. I am, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 20 minutes. Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 7 minutes. Mr. Chairman, what this argument is about today is unlike what has been argued before in this body on this matter. This debate is about what was the intent of the Congress in 1995 when we passed the act in this bill that allowed the Department of Justice to be reimbursed from other agencies for extraordinary expensive cases. What was on the table at that time was a lawsuit by a company against the Navy when the Navy canceled the A-12 aircraft contract. It was a multibillion-dollar lawsuit. Justice came to us and said, Would you please put in your bill a provision that allows the Navy to reimburse Justice for representing it in this massive lawsuit against the government. We said, Okay, we'll do that. Never in anyone's wildest imagination on the floor of this body was it anticipated that that statute would be used by the Government to initiate lawsuits, to sue people willy-nilly. Why? Because the Justice Department has a Civil Rights Division of some 1,039 lawyers with hundreds of millions of dollars to spend in filing lawsuits. Why would they need this kind of money to file a lawsuit? No, the Congress intended when we passed that statute to enable the Justice Department to be able to represent the Government when it was sued, not when it was the suer. Now the Government has filed three of these lawsuits using this statute contrary to the intent of the Congress, thumbing its nose at the Congress and saying, We will decide how we're going to spend the money you gave us from the taxpayers. We don't care what you thought when you passed the statute. That is the attitude of the Justice Department. Since the section was enacted, so-called 109, they have received roughly $324 million in reimbursements, almost all of which has been for just two massive lawsuits, the A-12 airplane case I mentioned, and the Winstar Savings and Loan cases where Justice was defending the Government against $33 billion in claims. Clearly, section 109 is an important tool to protect the Government and the taxpayer and should stay on the books. Without it, Justice would not have been able to mount credible defenses in critical cases and the Government could have suffered billions of dollars in losses. What we do in the bill is clarify Congressional intent. We say, Look, what we meant when we gave you that authority in 1995 was to defend the Government against these massive claims, not to initiate lawsuits. And the bill does ensure that the money would be used for defensive litigation which was the justification provided by the Justice Department when it sought from us this special authority and the understanding of Congress when we provided that authority. It is the reasonable approach, and it is the right thing to do. It ensures that funding provided for other programs in this and other appropriations bills are not diverted in the future for proactive lawsuits as have been done to the tune of over $8 million so far. Nothing in this bill restricts or prevents Justice from continuing any lawsuit, ongoing or prospective. Let them do what they will. We give them hundreds of millions of dollars with 1,034 lawyers in the Civil Rights Division to pursue civil actions. Nothing in the bill would restrict or prevent that. {time} 0915 This bill contains in fact $147 million to pay for those huge numbers of lawyers within the Civil Division to carry out affirmative cases, as the government sees fit. The Waxman amendment would modify this bill, to allow the government to continue raiding the budgets of other agencies for four proactive cases that were filed about Justice just before this year and which are being paid through the inappropriate use of section 109 authority. It would prohibit the use of section 109 for proactive cases filed after the beginning of the year. In so doing, the Waxman amendment by itself acknowledges that, in fact, section 109 is for defensive purposes only. But the gentleman says we acknowledge that, but give us a break this time for all cases filed before the beginning of the year, the statute is either for defensive purposes or it is not. If it is for defensive purposes, it acknowledges the intent of the Congress in 1995 that it was for defensive purposes. [[Page H5041]] If it was for defensive purposes then, the government was wrong to use these funds to file any lawsuits since 1995, so I reject out of hand the argument that this statute ought to be modified so that we could protect and cover the rear ends of those at Justice that made the decision that was contrary to the intent of Congress, wrong and should not be rewarded, as this amendment would do by giving them an excuse, giving them an out and saying yes, it is for defensive purposes, but we are going to forgive you this time. Sorry, sorry about that. The law is the law. This was for defensive purposes, the Justice Department has violated it, and the gentleman wants to reward them on this floor, and I suggest that we shall not do that. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, support for continuing the tobacco lawsuit should not be a partisan issue, and this amendment has bipartisan support. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to one of the great bipartisan leaders in this House, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen). Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague yielding the time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this amendment, because I honestly believe in my heart of hearts that the lawsuit against tobacco must be continued. Most of us have been to Gettysburg and have walked those hallowed fields of that place, and I often marvel that so many are willing to give their lives for a cause that they believe in. What makes Gettysburg even more important it was truly the turning point of the Civil War and began the tough road to reunification of the United States. Mr. Chairman, we find ourselves in a turning point of another war, and that is the war against youth smoking. For decades, the tobacco companies have lied to us here in Congress, lied to the people of this great land and continually targeted the American children. There surely must be accountability for these actions. Many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle are naturally wary of government lawsuits and in the vast majority of the cases, I agree with them; however, I also know that my colleagues on this side of the aisle were properly incensed when the definition of the words like ``is'' were twisted to avoid responsibility. Mr. Chairman, I would say to my colleagues on this side of the aisle that the tobacco companies have consistently done the same word manipulation for decades and have consistently avoided responsibility. I believe that the time has come to demand responsibility, and this is why I am supporting this amendment. I also know that many of my colleagues are concerned over the potential for future abuse of this authority, including the possibility that this or another administration may follow the advice of gun control extremists and pursue a lawsuit against the firearms industry. To those who share my concern on that issue, I implore them to read this amendment, it very clearly prohibits any future use of section 109 authority for such purposes. The amendment allows only one exemption, the tobacco lawsuit. This amendment assures that the executive branch cannot file any lawsuits that were not already active and receiving section 109 funds before the start of this year. There is only one lawsuit that fits that description, the tobacco lawsuit and all other lawsuits are prohibited. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this meritorious amendment. It is important to the health of our children and the future health of our grandchildren. Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes). Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, there is strong bipartisan opposition to this bill and I absolutely recognize my friends' right to take their position, but let me focus on the facts for a moment. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. This amendment jeopardizes the appropriations authority granted to Congress by the Constitution, and it will set a precedent that the administration, the President will determine spending instead of the Congress. I ask my colleagues to consider the precedent that this amendment will set with respect to our authority in Congress to determine the spending levels for our country. Attorney General Reno herself testified before the Senate that the Federal Government did not have the authority to bring the very lawsuit that my colleagues are advocating today. The law says the suit cannot be won, the money will be wasted, money that should be spent on veterans health care. In 1997, again, I say Ms. Reno testified that there was no legal basis to recover. The States have the authority and have a recovery of $246 billion that will be jeopardized by this amendment. The White House has failed to enact its desired 55 cent per pack Federal cigarette tax increase. The Attorney General shamelessly files the very same suit she explicitly admitted was groundless. This is ridiculous. Tobacco manufacturers never dupe the Federal Government. Washington has known for decades that smoking is dangerous. Since 1964, every pack sold in the United States has carried a mandated label warning of the risk of smoking. Nobody wants people to be harmed by smoking, especially no one wants children smoking, nor can Washington claim that it somehow acquired individual smokers right to sue. In 1997, the Department of Veterans Affairs rejected on the grounds that veterans assumed risk of smoking, a claim allegedly by former members of the Armed Forces in Washington freely distributed cigarettes 10 years after placing warning labels on the packages. Mr. Chairman, in 1947 a law was granted saying the Supreme Court in the United States may sue third parties to recoup health care costs but this is about insurance companies saving veterans health care money. To sum up, history and legal precedent do not support this amendment. The law and history say we will lose, save this money for health care, for veterans and any other group supported by this Congress. Strongly oppose the Waxman amendment on legal ground. Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the veterans organizations support our amendment, because they want that money to be brought back into veterans health care. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans) one of the great champions on behalf of veterans in this institution, and the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Veterans Affairs. Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, this week the House passed an amendment to the VA-HUD appropriations bill that enables the Department of Justice to pursue its pending litigation against the tobacco industry. This lawsuit seeks to recover billions of dollars spent by the VA and other Federal agencies to treat tobacco-related illnesses. A rider in this appropriations bill which would block the Justice Department from accepting these funds is a mirror image of the VA-HUD rider. The amendment I join with the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and my other colleagues in supporting today simply allows the wheels of justice to move forward. Mr. Chairman, there is something terribly wrong with the leadership of this body. During the last Congress, despite overwhelming evidence that tobacco-related illnesses are linked to nicotine addiction developed during the military service, the Republican leadership of the House effectively denied veterans the opportunity to seek legitimate compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs. Instead, this House passed a sense of Congress Resolution that the Attorney General and I quoted ``should take all steps necessary to recover from tobacco companies amounts corresponding to the costs which have been incurred by the VA for treatment of tobacco-related illness of veterans.'' Mr. Chairman, it seems our leadership would seek to walk away from this commitment strangling even the hope of a fair settlement from the big tobacco companies for the VA medical [[Page H5042]] care system. Passing this appropriation with the proposed rider will prevent Justice from using funds in pursuit of this lawsuit would be nothing less than shameful. If this House is not totally beholden to the tobacco industry, it would adopt this amendment. It will enable legal proceedings to go forward, and it will allow the outcome of lawsuits to be properly determined in court, not here on the floor of the House. Earlier this week, an open letter was distributed to Members of Congress by four major veterans service organizations, AMVETS, Disabled American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States. Veterans have made it clear that they support tobacco litigation that could allow a fair settlement to support VA's treatment of thousands of veterans' tobacco-related illnesses. That is why the veterans organizations who coauthor the independent budget have strongly endorsed our amendment. Let us keep our promise to America's veterans and let this lawsuit move forward on its own merit. In the name of justice, please support the Waxman-Evans amendment. Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lewis). (Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, the Federal tobacco lawsuit is bad public policy and a waste of taxpayer dollars. The case is not about the law, but about the Federal Government extorting money from an industry that it does not like. Which industry will be the next victim of this punitive action? The tobacco industry, in accordance with the terms of its 1998 settlement with the States, has changed its marketing, advertising, and business practices. The industry is also paying the States billions of dollars. Now the Justice Department wants a share of this revenue stream for the Federal Government and is willing to further sidestep to try to get it. The Justice Department needs to stop stealing veterans health care funds to pay for its baseless lawsuit. This suit claims the Federal Government and the public were deceived about the health risks of tobacco products. The same Federal Government that claims it was deceived has required health warnings on tobacco products since the 1960s. The Surgeon General's 1964 report details the risks of tobacco use. The American people are not as clueless as this lawsuit claims, people know the health risks associated with use of tobacco products. It is absurd to claim ignorance on this point. Adult consumers have the right to make risk judgments and choose the legal products they use. They also need to take personal responsibility for those choices. No Federal law gives the government authority to collect Medicare funds as proposed in this lawsuit. Mr. Chairman, 3 years ago, Attorney General Reno testified to the Senate that no Federal cause of action existed for Medicare and Medicaid claims; suddenly she has changed her tune under pressure from the White House. The Justice Department on the same day it announced the civil lawsuit ended its 5-year investigation of the tobacco industry without making any criminal charges. Last year the Congressional Research Service concluded that with a full accounting of costs of lifetime government-funded health care and benefits for tobacco users and tobacco excise taxes, the Federal Government actually nets $35 billion per year. There are not costs for a Federal Government to recover. It is already making money off of tobacco use and this administration only wants more. The absurdity of this legislation by litigation aside, one issue should be clear to everyone today, veterans health benefits are not intended to pay trial lawyers in a politically motivated lawsuit. This is not a rider. This is not special treatment. This is Congress carrying out its role in appropriating how tax dollars are to be spent. Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske), a respected physician Member of the House, one of the great leaders on public health issues. (Mr. GANSKE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Chairman, I have a great deal of respect for the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), as well as the chairman of the subcommittee; but we disagree. As a physician on this Floor, I have been asked many medical questions related to diseases caused by tobacco that is affecting members and their families. Tobacco is an addicting substance that causes lethal disease. It certainly has not spared our colleagues or their families. Big tobacco is trying to stymie a Federal lawsuit that seeks to recover costs of treatment of the tobacco-related diseases that the Federal taxpayers have subsidized. This includes the care of Members of Congress and their families, as well as other Federal employees, veterans, and Medicare beneficiaries. {time} 0930 The States recover damages against big tobacco based on their share of Medicaid. The Federal Government should too. The VA spends $4 billion annually on treatment of tobacco-related illness. Medicare spends $20.5 billion per year on tobacco-relayed illnesses. Big tobacco has known about the addictive lethal consequences of tobacco for a long time. Their CEOs committed perjury in testimony before Congress. Did those CEOs get punished for lying under oath? We did not even give them a slap on the wrist, and their deceitful lives have cost lives. The Waxman-Hansen amendment is supported by veterans groups, senior organizations, and practically all the public health groups. Mr. Speaker, this vote is about one thing: Are you for big tobacco, or are you for the American taxpayer who has paid the bill for big tobacco too long? Big tobacco has spread a lot of money around Capitol Hill to try to get Congress to stop the Department of Justice lawsuit. Well, here is your chance to be with the AMVETS, with the VFW, with all of these health groups, and, most importantly, with the taxpayers of this country. Vote for this amendment. Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger). Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, as a veteran of World War II, I remember all those great wonderful cigarettes that Uncle Sam gave me when I was in the service. I would like to say Ms. Reno should have tons of money because of those many things that everybody requested that she investigate but she never has. Let me just say I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that to recover under secondary payer provisions, Washington must show that the sales of tobacco are in and of themselves wrongful, and since the Feds have consistently regulated, subsidized, promoted and fiscally profited from tobacco products, while fully aware of the plant's health risk, such a showing would seem difficult, unless Washington admits being complicit to the wrongdoing; and a basic common law rule, my understanding is, is that one accomplice cannot sue another. So it seems to me that money spent on this effort is an absolute waste on a cause that is going to lose, and, besides that, I think Mrs. Reno has tons of money that we begged her to use in investigating some of the White House situations, and she never has. Why should she need more money? Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), a Member who is noted for his interest in fiscal responsibility and has a unique perspective on the promise made to the veterans a couple of years ago in the transportation bill. (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Waxman amendment for reasons of equity, for reasons of futility, and for reasons of constitutionality. The equities are obvious here. If the men and women who served in the [[Page H5043]] Armed Forces of this country contracted a disease related to tobacco when they served in those Armed Forces, and the country is paying for the care of those diseases in the form of VA health benefits, we ought to recover those costs from those who caused the disease in the tobacco industry. It is a matter of simple equity, and that is why the veterans organizations and the health organizations support this. We want to avoid futility. Earlier this week we passed an amendment on this floor that said that the Veterans Administration could free up administrative expenses, not health expenses, but administrative expenses, and send them over to the Justice Department to help pay for the cost of this suit. If we do not pass the Waxman amendment here, that effort would have been futile, because we will undo the result of that amendment. So we would be having the VA sending money over that the Justice Department could not use. That is not a mistake, but it would be a mistake to do that. Finally, there is a matter of constitutionality. I think it is unprecedented and terribly unwise for Members of the legislative branch to interfere and intervene in ongoing litigation brought by the Department of Justice. It is the worst kind of second guessing. It is the worst kind of abandonment of separation of powers. The Justice Department has made a decision, in my judgment a wise decision, at our direction, to initiate complex litigation to recover these costs. For us to intervene at this point, second guess at this point, is unwise and may in fact be unconstitutional. Let us let this litigation go forward. Let us let the taxpayers and the veterans of this country have their day in court. Let us join together and pass the Waxman amendment. Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property of the Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, it appears that the Attorney General and the Justice Department by way of this amendment is again attempting to insert the tobacco industry smack dab in the bull's eye of the target, and I guess that the command will be ``fire when ready.'' The tobacco industry has become the convenient and consistent whipping boy in this Congress as long as I have been here; and with each session, the opponents appear to grow more vocal and more determined to drive the final death knell into the coffin of tobacco. Nine or 10 years ago, and I told the chairman this some time ago, I had the privilege of going through the Lorillard plant in my district; and what I learned as a result of that visit that day was the dollars in taxes that they pay, local, State and Federal. I was educated. The Federal Government, Mr. Chairman, as you know, has consistently regulated, subsidized, promoted and fiscally profited from tobacco. If we keep fooling around with this, we are going to drive the tobacco industry into the coffin, and then the coffin finally into the ground, and those coffers that realize millions and millions of dollars directly from tobacco will either dry up, or, in the alternative, we will have to find other sources of revenue, and then you will start hearing people kicking and screaming and crying, what happened to the tobacco money? Well, the tobacco money was gone because of the consistent buggy whipping that has been on across their backs emanating from this very Chamber, and one of these days, Mr. Chairman, it is going to come back to haunt us. I will admit, I do not come to the well completely objective, because I represent growers and manufacturers; but let us be careful as we go about this. Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro). Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Waxman amendment. America's veterans have put their lives on the line for their Nation, and big tobacco should be held accountable for what they did to our veterans. Allowing the Justice Department to continue its suit against the tobacco industry will return millions of dollars in needed funding to the veterans health care system. That is fitting, considering the number of our Nation's veterans that now suffer from tobacco-related illnesses, that to this day, I might add, the tobacco industry denies are as a result of cigarettes. Who supports this amendment? The American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids. That is who supports it. Let us take a look at who opposes it. Philip Morris and the big tobacco companies, the folks who stood before the committee with their hands raised and talked about their product as not being addictive. That is what they said. That is what they told the American public. The group that tells us that when today's smokers die, that the next group of folks they go to, ``their replacement smokers,'' are 12-year-old kids. Those are their words, ``replacement smokers,'' 12-year-old kids. Mr. Chairman, it is time for big tobacco to pay the price for the damage that they have done. We should hold them accountable for their lies. Support veterans health care, protect our children from the tobacco industry's predatory practices. I urge Members to support the Waxman amendment today. Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to note the contribution that the gentlewoman from Connecticut has made as a leader on this issue in the Committee on Appropriations and commend her for her statement. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), who has been so involved in public health issues. (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, once again it appears that some individuals on the other side of the aisle would put politics before people, particularly our children. If the tobacco companies have nothing to hide, then why do they care if we have a lawsuit? Well, since the landmark State lawsuit settlement in 1998, tobacco companies have actually increased the amount of advertising aimed at our children. They lure our children with glossy ads. They become addicted to nicotine. It leaves millions of Americans sick and dying, while the tobacco companies continue to rake in the profits and the taxpayers of this Nation pick up the tab for the health care. Mr. Chairman, the Justice Department must have the funding to investigate big tobacco. I encourage my colleagues, vote for the Waxman amendment. Our children's lives depend on it. Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my good friend, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), who has been very involved in health issues and who before coming to the Congress was in the nursing profession. Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Waxman-Hansen amendment. I am outraged that the bill before us today would, in effect, halt the Justice Department's action to hold tobacco companies accountable. This rider would undo an agreement made just 2 days ago here on the floor of this House. That agreement would allow the Veterans Department to support DOJ's litigation. Mr. Chairman, this rider would have the effect of giving the tobacco companies immunity. It gives them a free pass by hamstringing Justice's ability to go after them in the courts. Remember, the tobacco industry produces an addictive product that, when used as directed and intended, contributes to the death of 300,000 to 400,000 people a year, injuring hundreds of thousands more. This industry has systematically attempted to lure children to start smoking and lied about it for years. It has manipulated the levels of nicotine to increase the addictiveness of cigarettes and lied about it for years. Tobacco companies deserve no special treatment. They deserve to be held accountable, and that is what passing the Waxman-Hansen amendment would allow, simple justice. I urge support for this amendment. Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is [[Page H5044]] remaining and who has the right to close. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) has 6 minutes remaining, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) has 3 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Kentucky has the right to close. Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder), another physician in the House of Representatives. {time} 0945 Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Chairman, as a family doctor and a Marine veteran, I have to ask myself now, why are the tobacco companies and their allies in Congress fighting this amendment, fighting this lawsuit in this way. Number one, they know the health costs that their product has caused, and those of us that have been in medicine have seen the lung cancer and the heart disease and the sexual impotence and all of those other problems; and we have seen those health costs. The tobacco companies know they lied to this Congress and lied to the American people about the effects of their product and the addictive quality. Finally, the tobacco companies know they targeted our men in uniform, those of us who used to open the C-rations and get the packs of cigarettes in there; we know we were targeted as we look back in time. That information would come out in this lawsuit, how they preyed on our young men, 17 and 18 and 19 and 20 years old, addicted them to this product, at a time when we were asking them to go into combat for their country in World War II and the Korean War and the Vietnam War. That is what this lawsuit is about, and they know what it is about. They do not want to have to defend in front of a jury, having targeted those young men. Support the Waxman amendment. Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), one of the leaders of the House of Representatives. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for his outstanding leadership on this very important issue. Mr. Chairman, I rise as a member of the Committee on Appropriations to point out a certain irony here. We were told on our committee that there should be no riders in our appropriations bill this year; and yet the majority is going to great lengths to include this very dangerous rider in this particular bill. The Attorney General has stated that if this rider is there, this bill that blocks funding for the lawsuits is enacted into law, we would have no ability to continue the litigation in the tobacco suits. Mr. Chairman, our colleagues have eloquently spoken to the $90 billion cost, both public and private, to our economy and the many diseases that are caused by tobacco. I want to dwell for a half a minute on our children. Approximately 5 million American children smoke. Every day, 3,000 more children become regular smokers. One out of three of these children will eventually die from tobacco-related causes. The market for cigarettes is maintained by marketing products to young people who can replace those smokers who die or quit. As a result of these tactics, the tobacco industry creates a lifetime of health problems and health costs for these children, and they should be held accountable. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will strengthen veterans' health care, and I urge our colleagues to support it. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Waxman/Evans/Hansen/ Meehan/Stabenow amendment. This amendment will allow the Department of Justice to pursue its lawsuit against the tobacco companies and seek to recover billions of dollars in health care expenditures that tobacco has cost federal taxpayers. The Attorney General has stated that if the rider in this bill that blocks funding for the lawsuit is enacted into law, ``We would have no ability to continue our litigation.'' This vote boils down to a simple choice: Will we vote to protect taxpayers and allow them to have their day in court? Or will we vote to protect Big Tobacco and once again allow the tobacco companies to escape legal responsibility for all the harm they have caused. Tobacco use is the leading cause of premature death in the United States. Over 430,000 premature deaths each year are a result of smoking related illnesses including chronic lung disease, coronary heart disease, and stroke as well as cancer of the lungs, larynx, esophagus, mouth, and bladder. This accounts for one out of five deaths, and twice the number of deaths caused by AIDS, alcohol, motor vehicles, homicide, drugs, and suicide combined. Smoking causes or contributes to a variety of debilitating physical and medical problems. Chronic coughing, emphysema, and bronchitis are products of smoking, and smokers are more susceptible to influenza. Smokers are more likely to suffer from periodontal disease. Smoking can also cause the early onset of menopause among women, incontinence, and reduced fertility, and increases the risk of impotence by 50 percent. Approximately 5 million American children smoke. And each day, another 3,000 children become regular smokers. One out of every three of these children will eventually die from tobacco-related causes. The market for cigarettes is maintained by marketing tobacco products to young people who can replace older smokers who die or quit. As a result of these tactics, the tobacco industry creates a lifetime of health care problems and health care costs for these children, and they should be held accountable. In addition to recovery of costs, this lawsuit seeks injunctive relief to stop the tobacco companies from marketing to children and engaging in other deceptive and illegal practices. Tobacco-related illnesses cost the federal taxpayer approximately $25 billion a year, excluding the federal share of Medicaid. The Medicare program pays $20.5 billion annually to treat tobacco-related illnesses; the Veterans Administration pays $4 billion; the Department of Defense pays $1.6 billion; and the Indian Health Service pays $300 million. In addition, tobacco-related health care costs the Medicaid program nearly $17 billion a year, of which federal taxpayers pay nearly $10 billion. Overall, public and private payments for tobacco-related care total approximately $90 billion each year. Any recovery of Medicare costs from this litigation help would be deposited in the Medicare trust fund. If the lawsuit is successful, these dollars could add years to the solvency of Medicare or fund a prescription drug benefit for seniors. Veterans medical care would be strengthened as will. Voting for this amendment is the right thing to do for seniors, veterans, kids, and taxpayers. I urge my colleagues to support the Waxman/Evans/Hansen/Meehan/Stabenow amendment. Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of our time. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) has made the point very clearly that this is not about other lawsuits, it is about the tobacco lawsuit alone. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) and the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) and others who, from a medical perspective, have told us how important it is to pursue recovery for health care services. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans) has pointed out that for the veterans, we made a promise to them, we should not betray them. We should keep that promise to reach out and get funds for veterans health care. This lawsuit against tobacco should be permitted to proceed. We should not defund it through a rider on an appropriations bill. Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to vote for this amendment. It is the right thing to do. Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of our time. (Mr. ROGERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, contrary to what we have heard, this amendment and this debate is not about whether one likes or believes in smoking, or whether it is good or bad for us. That is not the issue here. The issue is not whether this lawsuit has merits or not. That is what we have heard here, arguing the merits or demerits of the lawsuit. It has nothing to do with that. The question here is whether or not the Justice Department violated the law itself in filing the lawsuit. Last year, for the first time that I have ever recalled, Justice asked the Congress for money to file a specific lawsuit. The Congress said no; the money was denied. Justice then secretly went to three agencies and said, give us the money to file this lawsuit. They said, wait a minute, where is your authority for that? They said, well, look at section 109 of the 1995 State Commerce-Justice bill where it says that agencies can reimburse the Justice Department for representing them in court, and they dragged the money out of those agencies and filed this lawsuit. Well, that statute that they are talking about is the crux of what we are [[Page H5045]] talking about here today. That statute merely says that the Government can be represented in court when it is sued. That was the intent of the Congress; no to be the suer. No one told the Congress that they had done this. We had to find it out on our own, and we did. So the Department of Justice, the place supposedly where the Nation's morals are protected, the place where moral authority resides in this government, if anywhere, itself is the one that is thwarting the will of the Congress; that is, twisting words for its own purposes, that is clearly violating the intent of the Congress in passing the act in the first place. Why was it passed in the first place? The Government was sued, a huge multibillion dollar suit by the contractor for the Navy Department when we canceled the A-12 aircraft contract. In 1995, Justice says, please, Congress, help us. Allow the Defense Department to pay us back for representing them in defending this lawsuit, and we said, we think that is a legitimate purpose, and we wrote it into our bill. That is the statute they are trying to use. Mr. Chairman, we all know, my colleagues know that that statute is for defending the Government, not suing, willy-nilly. Why? Because we provided in this bill $147 million for them to bring lawsuits; 1,034 lawyers we hire there to file lawsuits. We are paying those lawyers to file lawsuits. This statute is for defending the Government, not suing. And yet, they would have us believe that this great moral authority at the Justice Department is right. I say to my colleagues, the question here is not the merits of the lawsuit or any other lawsuit, the question here is the merits of the morality at the Justice Department. Does the end justify the means? They say yes; I say no. Is this a nation of laws or of men? I say laws, and the Congress better say laws. They are taking your prerogative here down there and they are using it as they choose. I say to my colleagues, reject the Justice Department's grab of other agencies' money, but more importantly, the Justice Department's seizure of power away from the Congress. Never was it intended in this Congress in the passage of this statute that it was to be funding lawsuits filed by the Government. No one ever anticipated that or thought about it when we passed the act. The intent of the Congress is being clarified in our bill, and that is, this statute is for defensive purposes only. Reject the Waxman amendment that would legitimize and reward a Justice Department that has seized your prerogative and is acting like they are the law themselves and we do not matter. Well, Mr. Chairman, the end does not justify the these means. I urge my colleagues to tell the Justice Department to obey the law. Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the Waxman-Evans-Hansen-Meehan-Stabenow amendment. This amendment would restore the permission of the Justice Department to use section 109 to receive funding from client agencies interested in aiding them in the tobacco litigation. The federal tobacco litigation is the only active litigation affected by this savings clause. This bill puts the Department of Justice at a disadvantage in its case against tobacco companies. These companies present a devastating product to this country. They target the younger generations because of their vulnerability to the admittedly addictive agent, nicotine and overwhelming amount of peer pressure. An RJR research planning memorandum says and I quote, ``Realistically, if our Company is to survive and prosper, over the long term we must get our share of the youth market. . . .'' A memorandum to Curtis Judge, President of Lorillard Tobacco Co. said that ``The success of NEWPORT has been fantastic during the past few years. . . . [T]he base of our business is the high school student. . . .'' Our nation's credit-worthy veterans become addicted while in the service to cigarettes. The companies themselves have admitted to the addicting qualities of nicotine. S.J. Green, BATCo Director of Research reported that ``The strong addiction to cigarette[s] removes freedom of choice from many individuals.'' Another injustice of this market is that it targets low-income areas, who traditionally have insufficient amounts of health care. In my district I have 165,000 people who live at or below the poverty level-- many of them suffer from the effects of tobacco. The American people spend $25 billion to treat tobacco-related illnesses while being given no choice whether to become addicted or not. The Department of Veterans Affairs spends over $1 billion a year treating tobacco-related illness. Therefore, it is impossible that their budget of $4 million will be used in the litigation. Most of their money goes toward treatment of people with tobacco-induced illnesses. The bill as it stands blocks the Department of Veterans Affairs from helping the Department of Justice in this lawsuit that greatly involves them. This is an injustice to the American people who expect the government to defend their right for healthy lives. I support the amendment to this bill because in 1998 the promise was made on this House floor that we would ``take all steps necessary to recover from tobacco companies the cost which would be incurred by the Department of Veterans Affairs for treatment of tobacco-related illnesses of veterans. It will delete the rider and give the veterans the chance to recover tens of billions of dollars for Veteran's Affairs' underfunded medical care. This measure helps the Department of Justice's requests pay back to the Federal Government for expenses due to the misconduct of the tobacco industry by unrestricted funding for the endeavor. It will further protect those targeted youths from being victimized for their vulnerability to addictive agents. The House should not be vulnerable to persuasion of any measure that cuts the prosecuting of those entities that pose harm to the country. We have the responsibility to protect the people from unnecessary health risks by keeping them aware of the health risks. The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate on this amendment has expired. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman). The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it. Recorded Vote Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote. A recorded vote was ordered. The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 215, noes 183, not voting 36, as follows: [Roll No. 319] AYES--215 Abercrombie Ackerman Allen Andrews Baird Baldacci Baldwin Barcia Barrett (WI) Becerra Bentsen Bereuter Berkley Berry Bilbray Bilirakis Blagojevich Blumenauer Boehlert Bonior Bono Borski Boswell Brady (PA) Brown (FL) Brown (OH) Calvert Campbell Capps Capuano Cardin Carson Castle Clay Conyers Costello Coyne Crowley Cummings Cunningham Davis (FL) Davis (IL) DeFazio DeGette Delahunt DeLauro Deutsch Dicks Dingell Doggett Dooley Doyle Dunn Edwards Ehlers Engel Eshoo Evans Farr Fattah Foley Ford Frank (MA) Franks (NJ) Frelinghuysen Frost Gallegly Ganske Gejdenson Gephardt Gilchrest Gilman Gonzalez Green (TX) Greenwood Gutierrez Hall (OH) Hansen Hastings (FL) Hinchey Hinojosa Hobson Hoeffel Holden Holt Hooley Horn Hoyer Inslee Jackson (IL) Jackson-Lee (TX) Jefferson Johnson (CT) Kanjorski Kaptur Kelly Kennedy Kildee Kilpatrick Kind (WI) King (NY) Kleczka Kucinich LaFalce LaHood Lampson Lantos Larson Lee Levin Lewis (GA) Lipinski LoBiondo Lofgren Lowey Luther Maloney (CT) Maloney (NY) Manzullo Markey Mascara Matsui McCarthy (MO) McCarthy (NY) McDermott McGovern McHugh McKeon McKinney McNulty Meehan Meek (FL) Meeks (NY) Menendez Metcalf Millender-McDonald Miller, George Minge Mink Moakley Moore Moran (VA) Morella Nadler Napolitano Neal Nethercutt Oberstar Obey Olver Ose Owens Pallone Pascrell Pastor Payne Pelosi Peterson (PA) Porter Portman Pryce (OH) Quinn Rahall Ramstad Regula Rivers Rodriguez Roemer Roukema Royce Rush Sabo Sanchez Sanders Sawyer Saxton Scarborough Schaffer Schakowsky Serrano Shays Sherman Sherwood Skelton Slaughter Smith (NJ) Snyder Stabenow Stark Strickland Stupak Tauscher Taylor (MS) Thompson (CA) Thune Thurman Traficant Turner Udall (CO) Udall (NM) Upton Velazquez Visclosky Walsh Waters Waxman Weiner Wexler Weygand Wilson Wise Wolf Woolsey Wu Young (FL) [[Page H5046]] NOES--183 Aderholt Archer Armey Baca Baker Ballenger Barr Barrett (NE) Bartlett Barton Bass Bateman Biggert Bishop Bliley Blunt Boehner Bonilla Boucher Boyd Brady (TX) Bryant Burr Burton Buyer Callahan Camp Cannon Chabot Chambliss Chenoweth-Hage Clement Clyburn Coble Collins Combest Condit Cooksey Cramer Crane Cubin Danner Davis (VA) Deal DeLay DeMint Diaz-Balart Dickey Doolittle Dreier Duncan Ehrlich Emerson English Etheridge Everett Ewing Fletcher Forbes Fossella Fowler Gibbons Gillmor Goode Goodlatte Goodling Gordon Goss Graham Granger Green (WI) Gutknecht Hall (TX) Hastings (WA) Hayes Hayworth Hefley Herger Hill (IN) Hill (MT) Hilleary Hilliard Hoekstra Hostettler Houghton Hulshof Hunter Hutchinson Hyde Isakson Jenkins John Johnson, Sam Jones (NC) Kingston Knollenberg Kolbe Largent Latham LaTourette Lewis (CA) Lewis (KY) Linder Lucas (KY) Lucas (OK) Martinez McInnis McIntyre Mica Miller (FL) Miller, Gary Mollohan Moran (KS) Murtha Ney Northup Norwood Nussle Ortiz Oxley Packard Paul Pease Peterson (MN) Petri Phelps Pickering Pickett Pitts Pombo Price (NC) Reynolds Riley Rogan Rogers Rohrabacher Ros-Lehtinen Ryan (WI) Ryun (KS) Sandlin Sanford Scott Sensenbrenner Sessions Shadegg Shaw Shimkus Shows Shuster Simpson Sisisky Skeen Smith (MI) Smith (TX) Souder Spence Spratt Stearns Stenholm Stump Sununu Sweeney Talent Tancredo Tanner Taylor (NC) Terry Thomas Thompson (MS) Thornberry Tiahrt Toomey Vitter Walden Wamp Watkins Watt (NC) Watts (OK) Weldon (FL) Weldon (PA) Weller Whitfield Wicker NOT VOTING--36 Bachus Berman Canady Clayton Coburn Cook Cox Dixon Filner Gekas Istook Johnson, E. B. Jones (OH) Kasich Klink Kuykendall Lazio Leach McCollum McCrery McIntosh Myrick Pomeroy Radanovich Rangel Reyes Rothman Roybal-Allard Salmon Smith (WA) Tauzin Tierney Towns Vento Wynn Young (AK) {time} 1019 Messrs. SKEEN, SHADEGG and HILLIARD changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.'' Mrs. BONO, Mr. PORTMAN and Mr. CALVERT changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.'' So the amendment was agreed to. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman the designee of the gentleman from Kentucky? Mr. HUTCHINSON. I am, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arkansas is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the committee for this recognition. I rise to discuss the issue of methamphetamine lab cleanup, an issue of great importance to my State of Arkansas and to the rest of rural America. Let me also thank the gentleman from Kentucky for including funds in the bill for meth lab cleanup for fiscal year 2001. This much needed appropriation bill that provides meth lab cleanup for 2001 will ensure that we do not find ourselves in a crisis situation again. As we all know, the DEA ran out of funds for this critical program in mid-March and many of us have been working to find additional fiscal year 2000 funds through a variety of sources. Unfortunately, the need is still pressing. I would like to inquire whether the gentleman from Kentucky would be willing to continue working with me and other interested Members to address the fiscal year 2000 shortfall before the end of this fiscal year. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) who has also been very active in this effort. Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arkansas for yielding, and I would like to thank him for his leadership on this issue. I would like to reinforce the importance of funding for meth lab cleanup for Wisconsin and the majority of rural America. Our local law enforcement agencies do not possess the resources to fund meth lab cleanup, and therefore we currently have two meth labs in my district that are sitting and waiting until funds can be made available from the DEA to clean them up. This presents a serious safety and environmental danger. I would also like to inquire of the gentleman from Kentucky if he will work to continue to address the shortfall in the current fiscal year for the meth lab cleanup. Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HUTCHINSON. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky. Mr. ROGERS. I thank both of the gentlemen for their leadership on this very important issue. It is a matter that we have been dealing with in our subcommittee now for some time attempting to find the funds to be able to adequately fight this battle. I will remain committed to working with them and with the Senate and the administration to resolve the fiscal year 2000 funding shortfall. Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the gentleman for that commitment and for his leadership on this issue. Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman the designee of the gentleman from Kentucky? Mr. GOODLATTE. I am, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I was going to say that I rise to do this, but I guess I will just say that I seek to engage in a colloquy with the chairman of the subcommittee. The chairman has been very diligent in his efforts to provide funding for various law enforcement needs. I greatly appreciate that. One of the areas is in the category of missing and exploited children. One of the areas that is of grave concern to me and a great many other Members of Congress is the problem of child pornography and child sexual exploitation on the Internet. It is a very, very serious problem. In the past, funds have been specifically designated for the purpose of providing funding to State and local law enforcement agencies to combat this. In last year's legislation, $6 million was so appropriated. I had intended to offer an amendment this year which provides that that $6 million or more be specifically designated for that purpose. The gentleman from Kentucky has indicated that this can be taken care of in conference and that this money will indeed ultimately be so designated. I hope to engage in a colloquy here to find out if indeed that is the case and he can indicate to me his plans for providing these funds for this specific purpose. They are a part of the, as I understand it, $19 million that is for missing and exploited children in general. At this point the chairman has not earmarked any of that money, but we are concerned that this money not go somewhere else and is provided to local law enforcement for the purpose of combating this serious problem on the Internet. Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky. Mr. ROGERS. I will continue to work with the gentleman to provide funding for this program at least at last year's level. Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman. That is very helpful. Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman the designee of the gentleman from Kentucky? Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Yes, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the gentleman from Kentucky in a colloquy. Mr. Chairman, this bill appropriates $130 million for the Department of Justice to distribute to State and local governments under the Criminal Identification Technical Improvement Act. Mr. ROGERS. If the g

Major Actions:

All articles in House section

DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001
(House of Representatives - June 23, 2000)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H5039-H5072] DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001 The SPEAKER. Pursuant to House Resolution 529 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, H.R. 4690. {time} 0904 In the Committee of the Whole Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill (H.R. 4690) making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes, with Mr. Hastings of Washington in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Thursday, June 22, 2000, the amendment by the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) had been disposed of and the bill was open for amendment from page 35, line 8, through page 35, line 14. Pursuant to the order of the House of that day, no further amendment to the bill shall be in order except pro forma amendments offered by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations or their designees for the purpose of debate and amendments printed in the Congressional Record on or before June 22, 2000, which may be offered only by the Member who caused it to be printed or his designee, shall be considered read, shall not be subject to amendment (except pro forma amendments for the purpose of debate), and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the question. Before consideration of any other amendment, it shall be in order to consider the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) to section 110, which shall be debatable only for 40 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. Amendment Offered by Mr. Waxman Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. Waxman: Page 37, line 11, after the period, insert the following: The preceding sentence shall not apply to litigation filed before January 1, 2000, that has received funding under section 109 of Public Law 103-317 (28 U.S.C. 509 note). The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, June 22, 2000, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and a Member opposed each will control 20 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman). Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes. [[Page H5040]] I am offering this amendment with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), the ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs; the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen); the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan); and the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow). This is the third time this week we have offered an amendment to an appropriations bill to allow the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Justice Department to continue their tobacco lawsuit. The first time we offered our amendment to the VA-HUD bill, we lost on a close vote of 197-207. The second time we offered the amendment, we reached an agreement with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), the subcommittee chairman, and prevailed on a voice vote. I thought that this issue had been resolved. I thought the House had determined that the veterans and America's taxpayers deserved their day in court. The Federal lawsuit would be decided by a judge and a jury in a court based on the merits of the case, not by Congress through legislative riders. Unfortunately, I was wrong. The bill before us today, the Commerce- State-Justice appropriations bill, would undo the agreement we reached on Tuesday. Once again, it contains a rider that would defund the Federal tobacco lawsuit. During the debate over the past few days, we have learned several things. First, we have learned that stopping the Federal lawsuit is unfair to veterans. In 1998, Congress made a promise to veterans when we took the funds that were directed at veterans for cigarette-related disabilities and used it for highways. Congress said, We'll go to the courts and get money from the tobacco companies. If we adopt the language in this bill without our amendment, we will be going back on this promise. This is simply wrong. That is why our amendment is strongly supported by the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, the Disabled American Veterans, and AMVETS. We have also learned that defunding the Federal lawsuit is unfair to America's seniors. Each year Medicare spends $20 billion treating tobacco-related illnesses. The Federal lawsuit could potentially recover these costs, extending the solvency of the Medicare trust fund for years. That is why our amendment is strongly supported by the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare and other seniors' organizations. In effect, we have a simple choice. We can stand with an industry that has lied to the American people for decades, or we can stand with our Nation's veterans and our senior citizens. I ask my colleagues to think about what we are going to do. We are about to take the unprecedented action of stopping the judicial process in the middle of a pending case. And we are about to take this action for an industry that is the least deserving industry in America, for an industry that has targeted our children, for an industry that manipulated nicotine to keep smokers addicted, for an industry that has deceived and lied to the public for decades. Our amendment is drawn very narrowly. It does not allow the Justice Department to seek funding from other agencies to sue the gun industry, the gambling industry, or any other industry. All our amendment says is that this new policy should not be applied retroactively to halt pending litigation that commenced in reliance on the current law. In effect, the amendment is nothing more than a savings clause that would allow the tobacco suit to continue. Our amendment raises exactly the same issue we debated on Monday and decided on Tuesday. Today, as we did on Tuesday, we should stand with our veterans and our seniors, not the tobacco companies. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman from Kentucky opposed to the amendment? Mr. ROGERS. I am, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 20 minutes. Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 7 minutes. Mr. Chairman, what this argument is about today is unlike what has been argued before in this body on this matter. This debate is about what was the intent of the Congress in 1995 when we passed the act in this bill that allowed the Department of Justice to be reimbursed from other agencies for extraordinary expensive cases. What was on the table at that time was a lawsuit by a company against the Navy when the Navy canceled the A-12 aircraft contract. It was a multibillion-dollar lawsuit. Justice came to us and said, Would you please put in your bill a provision that allows the Navy to reimburse Justice for representing it in this massive lawsuit against the government. We said, Okay, we'll do that. Never in anyone's wildest imagination on the floor of this body was it anticipated that that statute would be used by the Government to initiate lawsuits, to sue people willy-nilly. Why? Because the Justice Department has a Civil Rights Division of some 1,039 lawyers with hundreds of millions of dollars to spend in filing lawsuits. Why would they need this kind of money to file a lawsuit? No, the Congress intended when we passed that statute to enable the Justice Department to be able to represent the Government when it was sued, not when it was the suer. Now the Government has filed three of these lawsuits using this statute contrary to the intent of the Congress, thumbing its nose at the Congress and saying, We will decide how we're going to spend the money you gave us from the taxpayers. We don't care what you thought when you passed the statute. That is the attitude of the Justice Department. Since the section was enacted, so-called 109, they have received roughly $324 million in reimbursements, almost all of which has been for just two massive lawsuits, the A-12 airplane case I mentioned, and the Winstar Savings and Loan cases where Justice was defending the Government against $33 billion in claims. Clearly, section 109 is an important tool to protect the Government and the taxpayer and should stay on the books. Without it, Justice would not have been able to mount credible defenses in critical cases and the Government could have suffered billions of dollars in losses. What we do in the bill is clarify Congressional intent. We say, Look, what we meant when we gave you that authority in 1995 was to defend the Government against these massive claims, not to initiate lawsuits. And the bill does ensure that the money would be used for defensive litigation which was the justification provided by the Justice Department when it sought from us this special authority and the understanding of Congress when we provided that authority. It is the reasonable approach, and it is the right thing to do. It ensures that funding provided for other programs in this and other appropriations bills are not diverted in the future for proactive lawsuits as have been done to the tune of over $8 million so far. Nothing in this bill restricts or prevents Justice from continuing any lawsuit, ongoing or prospective. Let them do what they will. We give them hundreds of millions of dollars with 1,034 lawyers in the Civil Rights Division to pursue civil actions. Nothing in the bill would restrict or prevent that. {time} 0915 This bill contains in fact $147 million to pay for those huge numbers of lawyers within the Civil Division to carry out affirmative cases, as the government sees fit. The Waxman amendment would modify this bill, to allow the government to continue raiding the budgets of other agencies for four proactive cases that were filed about Justice just before this year and which are being paid through the inappropriate use of section 109 authority. It would prohibit the use of section 109 for proactive cases filed after the beginning of the year. In so doing, the Waxman amendment by itself acknowledges that, in fact, section 109 is for defensive purposes only. But the gentleman says we acknowledge that, but give us a break this time for all cases filed before the beginning of the year, the statute is either for defensive purposes or it is not. If it is for defensive purposes, it acknowledges the intent of the Congress in 1995 that it was for defensive purposes. [[Page H5041]] If it was for defensive purposes then, the government was wrong to use these funds to file any lawsuits since 1995, so I reject out of hand the argument that this statute ought to be modified so that we could protect and cover the rear ends of those at Justice that made the decision that was contrary to the intent of Congress, wrong and should not be rewarded, as this amendment would do by giving them an excuse, giving them an out and saying yes, it is for defensive purposes, but we are going to forgive you this time. Sorry, sorry about that. The law is the law. This was for defensive purposes, the Justice Department has violated it, and the gentleman wants to reward them on this floor, and I suggest that we shall not do that. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, support for continuing the tobacco lawsuit should not be a partisan issue, and this amendment has bipartisan support. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to one of the great bipartisan leaders in this House, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen). Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague yielding the time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this amendment, because I honestly believe in my heart of hearts that the lawsuit against tobacco must be continued. Most of us have been to Gettysburg and have walked those hallowed fields of that place, and I often marvel that so many are willing to give their lives for a cause that they believe in. What makes Gettysburg even more important it was truly the turning point of the Civil War and began the tough road to reunification of the United States. Mr. Chairman, we find ourselves in a turning point of another war, and that is the war against youth smoking. For decades, the tobacco companies have lied to us here in Congress, lied to the people of this great land and continually targeted the American children. There surely must be accountability for these actions. Many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle are naturally wary of government lawsuits and in the vast majority of the cases, I agree with them; however, I also know that my colleagues on this side of the aisle were properly incensed when the definition of the words like ``is'' were twisted to avoid responsibility. Mr. Chairman, I would say to my colleagues on this side of the aisle that the tobacco companies have consistently done the same word manipulation for decades and have consistently avoided responsibility. I believe that the time has come to demand responsibility, and this is why I am supporting this amendment. I also know that many of my colleagues are concerned over the potential for future abuse of this authority, including the possibility that this or another administration may follow the advice of gun control extremists and pursue a lawsuit against the firearms industry. To those who share my concern on that issue, I implore them to read this amendment, it very clearly prohibits any future use of section 109 authority for such purposes. The amendment allows only one exemption, the tobacco lawsuit. This amendment assures that the executive branch cannot file any lawsuits that were not already active and receiving section 109 funds before the start of this year. There is only one lawsuit that fits that description, the tobacco lawsuit and all other lawsuits are prohibited. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this meritorious amendment. It is important to the health of our children and the future health of our grandchildren. Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes). Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, there is strong bipartisan opposition to this bill and I absolutely recognize my friends' right to take their position, but let me focus on the facts for a moment. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. This amendment jeopardizes the appropriations authority granted to Congress by the Constitution, and it will set a precedent that the administration, the President will determine spending instead of the Congress. I ask my colleagues to consider the precedent that this amendment will set with respect to our authority in Congress to determine the spending levels for our country. Attorney General Reno herself testified before the Senate that the Federal Government did not have the authority to bring the very lawsuit that my colleagues are advocating today. The law says the suit cannot be won, the money will be wasted, money that should be spent on veterans health care. In 1997, again, I say Ms. Reno testified that there was no legal basis to recover. The States have the authority and have a recovery of $246 billion that will be jeopardized by this amendment. The White House has failed to enact its desired 55 cent per pack Federal cigarette tax increase. The Attorney General shamelessly files the very same suit she explicitly admitted was groundless. This is ridiculous. Tobacco manufacturers never dupe the Federal Government. Washington has known for decades that smoking is dangerous. Since 1964, every pack sold in the United States has carried a mandated label warning of the risk of smoking. Nobody wants people to be harmed by smoking, especially no one wants children smoking, nor can Washington claim that it somehow acquired individual smokers right to sue. In 1997, the Department of Veterans Affairs rejected on the grounds that veterans assumed risk of smoking, a claim allegedly by former members of the Armed Forces in Washington freely distributed cigarettes 10 years after placing warning labels on the packages. Mr. Chairman, in 1947 a law was granted saying the Supreme Court in the United States may sue third parties to recoup health care costs but this is about insurance companies saving veterans health care money. To sum up, history and legal precedent do not support this amendment. The law and history say we will lose, save this money for health care, for veterans and any other group supported by this Congress. Strongly oppose the Waxman amendment on legal ground. Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the veterans organizations support our amendment, because they want that money to be brought back into veterans health care. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans) one of the great champions on behalf of veterans in this institution, and the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Veterans Affairs. Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, this week the House passed an amendment to the VA-HUD appropriations bill that enables the Department of Justice to pursue its pending litigation against the tobacco industry. This lawsuit seeks to recover billions of dollars spent by the VA and other Federal agencies to treat tobacco-related illnesses. A rider in this appropriations bill which would block the Justice Department from accepting these funds is a mirror image of the VA-HUD rider. The amendment I join with the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and my other colleagues in supporting today simply allows the wheels of justice to move forward. Mr. Chairman, there is something terribly wrong with the leadership of this body. During the last Congress, despite overwhelming evidence that tobacco-related illnesses are linked to nicotine addiction developed during the military service, the Republican leadership of the House effectively denied veterans the opportunity to seek legitimate compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs. Instead, this House passed a sense of Congress Resolution that the Attorney General and I quoted ``should take all steps necessary to recover from tobacco companies amounts corresponding to the costs which have been incurred by the VA for treatment of tobacco-related illness of veterans.'' Mr. Chairman, it seems our leadership would seek to walk away from this commitment strangling even the hope of a fair settlement from the big tobacco companies for the VA medical [[Page H5042]] care system. Passing this appropriation with the proposed rider will prevent Justice from using funds in pursuit of this lawsuit would be nothing less than shameful. If this House is not totally beholden to the tobacco industry, it would adopt this amendment. It will enable legal proceedings to go forward, and it will allow the outcome of lawsuits to be properly determined in court, not here on the floor of the House. Earlier this week, an open letter was distributed to Members of Congress by four major veterans service organizations, AMVETS, Disabled American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States. Veterans have made it clear that they support tobacco litigation that could allow a fair settlement to support VA's treatment of thousands of veterans' tobacco-related illnesses. That is why the veterans organizations who coauthor the independent budget have strongly endorsed our amendment. Let us keep our promise to America's veterans and let this lawsuit move forward on its own merit. In the name of justice, please support the Waxman-Evans amendment. Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lewis). (Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, the Federal tobacco lawsuit is bad public policy and a waste of taxpayer dollars. The case is not about the law, but about the Federal Government extorting money from an industry that it does not like. Which industry will be the next victim of this punitive action? The tobacco industry, in accordance with the terms of its 1998 settlement with the States, has changed its marketing, advertising, and business practices. The industry is also paying the States billions of dollars. Now the Justice Department wants a share of this revenue stream for the Federal Government and is willing to further sidestep to try to get it. The Justice Department needs to stop stealing veterans health care funds to pay for its baseless lawsuit. This suit claims the Federal Government and the public were deceived about the health risks of tobacco products. The same Federal Government that claims it was deceived has required health warnings on tobacco products since the 1960s. The Surgeon General's 1964 report details the risks of tobacco use. The American people are not as clueless as this lawsuit claims, people know the health risks associated with use of tobacco products. It is absurd to claim ignorance on this point. Adult consumers have the right to make risk judgments and choose the legal products they use. They also need to take personal responsibility for those choices. No Federal law gives the government authority to collect Medicare funds as proposed in this lawsuit. Mr. Chairman, 3 years ago, Attorney General Reno testified to the Senate that no Federal cause of action existed for Medicare and Medicaid claims; suddenly she has changed her tune under pressure from the White House. The Justice Department on the same day it announced the civil lawsuit ended its 5-year investigation of the tobacco industry without making any criminal charges. Last year the Congressional Research Service concluded that with a full accounting of costs of lifetime government-funded health care and benefits for tobacco users and tobacco excise taxes, the Federal Government actually nets $35 billion per year. There are not costs for a Federal Government to recover. It is already making money off of tobacco use and this administration only wants more. The absurdity of this legislation by litigation aside, one issue should be clear to everyone today, veterans health benefits are not intended to pay trial lawyers in a politically motivated lawsuit. This is not a rider. This is not special treatment. This is Congress carrying out its role in appropriating how tax dollars are to be spent. Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske), a respected physician Member of the House, one of the great leaders on public health issues. (Mr. GANSKE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Chairman, I have a great deal of respect for the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), as well as the chairman of the subcommittee; but we disagree. As a physician on this Floor, I have been asked many medical questions related to diseases caused by tobacco that is affecting members and their families. Tobacco is an addicting substance that causes lethal disease. It certainly has not spared our colleagues or their families. Big tobacco is trying to stymie a Federal lawsuit that seeks to recover costs of treatment of the tobacco-related diseases that the Federal taxpayers have subsidized. This includes the care of Members of Congress and their families, as well as other Federal employees, veterans, and Medicare beneficiaries. {time} 0930 The States recover damages against big tobacco based on their share of Medicaid. The Federal Government should too. The VA spends $4 billion annually on treatment of tobacco-related illness. Medicare spends $20.5 billion per year on tobacco-relayed illnesses. Big tobacco has known about the addictive lethal consequences of tobacco for a long time. Their CEOs committed perjury in testimony before Congress. Did those CEOs get punished for lying under oath? We did not even give them a slap on the wrist, and their deceitful lives have cost lives. The Waxman-Hansen amendment is supported by veterans groups, senior organizations, and practically all the public health groups. Mr. Speaker, this vote is about one thing: Are you for big tobacco, or are you for the American taxpayer who has paid the bill for big tobacco too long? Big tobacco has spread a lot of money around Capitol Hill to try to get Congress to stop the Department of Justice lawsuit. Well, here is your chance to be with the AMVETS, with the VFW, with all of these health groups, and, most importantly, with the taxpayers of this country. Vote for this amendment. Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger). Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, as a veteran of World War II, I remember all those great wonderful cigarettes that Uncle Sam gave me when I was in the service. I would like to say Ms. Reno should have tons of money because of those many things that everybody requested that she investigate but she never has. Let me just say I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that to recover under secondary payer provisions, Washington must show that the sales of tobacco are in and of themselves wrongful, and since the Feds have consistently regulated, subsidized, promoted and fiscally profited from tobacco products, while fully aware of the plant's health risk, such a showing would seem difficult, unless Washington admits being complicit to the wrongdoing; and a basic common law rule, my understanding is, is that one accomplice cannot sue another. So it seems to me that money spent on this effort is an absolute waste on a cause that is going to lose, and, besides that, I think Mrs. Reno has tons of money that we begged her to use in investigating some of the White House situations, and she never has. Why should she need more money? Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), a Member who is noted for his interest in fiscal responsibility and has a unique perspective on the promise made to the veterans a couple of years ago in the transportation bill. (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Waxman amendment for reasons of equity, for reasons of futility, and for reasons of constitutionality. The equities are obvious here. If the men and women who served in the [[Page H5043]] Armed Forces of this country contracted a disease related to tobacco when they served in those Armed Forces, and the country is paying for the care of those diseases in the form of VA health benefits, we ought to recover those costs from those who caused the disease in the tobacco industry. It is a matter of simple equity, and that is why the veterans organizations and the health organizations support this. We want to avoid futility. Earlier this week we passed an amendment on this floor that said that the Veterans Administration could free up administrative expenses, not health expenses, but administrative expenses, and send them over to the Justice Department to help pay for the cost of this suit. If we do not pass the Waxman amendment here, that effort would have been futile, because we will undo the result of that amendment. So we would be having the VA sending money over that the Justice Department could not use. That is not a mistake, but it would be a mistake to do that. Finally, there is a matter of constitutionality. I think it is unprecedented and terribly unwise for Members of the legislative branch to interfere and intervene in ongoing litigation brought by the Department of Justice. It is the worst kind of second guessing. It is the worst kind of abandonment of separation of powers. The Justice Department has made a decision, in my judgment a wise decision, at our direction, to initiate complex litigation to recover these costs. For us to intervene at this point, second guess at this point, is unwise and may in fact be unconstitutional. Let us let this litigation go forward. Let us let the taxpayers and the veterans of this country have their day in court. Let us join together and pass the Waxman amendment. Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property of the Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, it appears that the Attorney General and the Justice Department by way of this amendment is again attempting to insert the tobacco industry smack dab in the bull's eye of the target, and I guess that the command will be ``fire when ready.'' The tobacco industry has become the convenient and consistent whipping boy in this Congress as long as I have been here; and with each session, the opponents appear to grow more vocal and more determined to drive the final death knell into the coffin of tobacco. Nine or 10 years ago, and I told the chairman this some time ago, I had the privilege of going through the Lorillard plant in my district; and what I learned as a result of that visit that day was the dollars in taxes that they pay, local, State and Federal. I was educated. The Federal Government, Mr. Chairman, as you know, has consistently regulated, subsidized, promoted and fiscally profited from tobacco. If we keep fooling around with this, we are going to drive the tobacco industry into the coffin, and then the coffin finally into the ground, and those coffers that realize millions and millions of dollars directly from tobacco will either dry up, or, in the alternative, we will have to find other sources of revenue, and then you will start hearing people kicking and screaming and crying, what happened to the tobacco money? Well, the tobacco money was gone because of the consistent buggy whipping that has been on across their backs emanating from this very Chamber, and one of these days, Mr. Chairman, it is going to come back to haunt us. I will admit, I do not come to the well completely objective, because I represent growers and manufacturers; but let us be careful as we go about this. Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro). Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Waxman amendment. America's veterans have put their lives on the line for their Nation, and big tobacco should be held accountable for what they did to our veterans. Allowing the Justice Department to continue its suit against the tobacco industry will return millions of dollars in needed funding to the veterans health care system. That is fitting, considering the number of our Nation's veterans that now suffer from tobacco-related illnesses, that to this day, I might add, the tobacco industry denies are as a result of cigarettes. Who supports this amendment? The American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids. That is who supports it. Let us take a look at who opposes it. Philip Morris and the big tobacco companies, the folks who stood before the committee with their hands raised and talked about their product as not being addictive. That is what they said. That is what they told the American public. The group that tells us that when today's smokers die, that the next group of folks they go to, ``their replacement smokers,'' are 12-year-old kids. Those are their words, ``replacement smokers,'' 12-year-old kids. Mr. Chairman, it is time for big tobacco to pay the price for the damage that they have done. We should hold them accountable for their lies. Support veterans health care, protect our children from the tobacco industry's predatory practices. I urge Members to support the Waxman amendment today. Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to note the contribution that the gentlewoman from Connecticut has made as a leader on this issue in the Committee on Appropriations and commend her for her statement. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), who has been so involved in public health issues. (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, once again it appears that some individuals on the other side of the aisle would put politics before people, particularly our children. If the tobacco companies have nothing to hide, then why do they care if we have a lawsuit? Well, since the landmark State lawsuit settlement in 1998, tobacco companies have actually increased the amount of advertising aimed at our children. They lure our children with glossy ads. They become addicted to nicotine. It leaves millions of Americans sick and dying, while the tobacco companies continue to rake in the profits and the taxpayers of this Nation pick up the tab for the health care. Mr. Chairman, the Justice Department must have the funding to investigate big tobacco. I encourage my colleagues, vote for the Waxman amendment. Our children's lives depend on it. Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my good friend, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), who has been very involved in health issues and who before coming to the Congress was in the nursing profession. Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Waxman-Hansen amendment. I am outraged that the bill before us today would, in effect, halt the Justice Department's action to hold tobacco companies accountable. This rider would undo an agreement made just 2 days ago here on the floor of this House. That agreement would allow the Veterans Department to support DOJ's litigation. Mr. Chairman, this rider would have the effect of giving the tobacco companies immunity. It gives them a free pass by hamstringing Justice's ability to go after them in the courts. Remember, the tobacco industry produces an addictive product that, when used as directed and intended, contributes to the death of 300,000 to 400,000 people a year, injuring hundreds of thousands more. This industry has systematically attempted to lure children to start smoking and lied about it for years. It has manipulated the levels of nicotine to increase the addictiveness of cigarettes and lied about it for years. Tobacco companies deserve no special treatment. They deserve to be held accountable, and that is what passing the Waxman-Hansen amendment would allow, simple justice. I urge support for this amendment. Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is [[Page H5044]] remaining and who has the right to close. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) has 6 minutes remaining, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) has 3 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Kentucky has the right to close. Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder), another physician in the House of Representatives. {time} 0945 Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Chairman, as a family doctor and a Marine veteran, I have to ask myself now, why are the tobacco companies and their allies in Congress fighting this amendment, fighting this lawsuit in this way. Number one, they know the health costs that their product has caused, and those of us that have been in medicine have seen the lung cancer and the heart disease and the sexual impotence and all of those other problems; and we have seen those health costs. The tobacco companies know they lied to this Congress and lied to the American people about the effects of their product and the addictive quality. Finally, the tobacco companies know they targeted our men in uniform, those of us who used to open the C-rations and get the packs of cigarettes in there; we know we were targeted as we look back in time. That information would come out in this lawsuit, how they preyed on our young men, 17 and 18 and 19 and 20 years old, addicted them to this product, at a time when we were asking them to go into combat for their country in World War II and the Korean War and the Vietnam War. That is what this lawsuit is about, and they know what it is about. They do not want to have to defend in front of a jury, having targeted those young men. Support the Waxman amendment. Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), one of the leaders of the House of Representatives. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for his outstanding leadership on this very important issue. Mr. Chairman, I rise as a member of the Committee on Appropriations to point out a certain irony here. We were told on our committee that there should be no riders in our appropriations bill this year; and yet the majority is going to great lengths to include this very dangerous rider in this particular bill. The Attorney General has stated that if this rider is there, this bill that blocks funding for the lawsuits is enacted into law, we would have no ability to continue the litigation in the tobacco suits. Mr. Chairman, our colleagues have eloquently spoken to the $90 billion cost, both public and private, to our economy and the many diseases that are caused by tobacco. I want to dwell for a half a minute on our children. Approximately 5 million American children smoke. Every day, 3,000 more children become regular smokers. One out of three of these children will eventually die from tobacco-related causes. The market for cigarettes is maintained by marketing products to young people who can replace those smokers who die or quit. As a result of these tactics, the tobacco industry creates a lifetime of health problems and health costs for these children, and they should be held accountable. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will strengthen veterans' health care, and I urge our colleagues to support it. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Waxman/Evans/Hansen/ Meehan/Stabenow amendment. This amendment will allow the Department of Justice to pursue its lawsuit against the tobacco companies and seek to recover billions of dollars in health care expenditures that tobacco has cost federal taxpayers. The Attorney General has stated that if the rider in this bill that blocks funding for the lawsuit is enacted into law, ``We would have no ability to continue our litigation.'' This vote boils down to a simple choice: Will we vote to protect taxpayers and allow them to have their day in court? Or will we vote to protect Big Tobacco and once again allow the tobacco companies to escape legal responsibility for all the harm they have caused. Tobacco use is the leading cause of premature death in the United States. Over 430,000 premature deaths each year are a result of smoking related illnesses including chronic lung disease, coronary heart disease, and stroke as well as cancer of the lungs, larynx, esophagus, mouth, and bladder. This accounts for one out of five deaths, and twice the number of deaths caused by AIDS, alcohol, motor vehicles, homicide, drugs, and suicide combined. Smoking causes or contributes to a variety of debilitating physical and medical problems. Chronic coughing, emphysema, and bronchitis are products of smoking, and smokers are more susceptible to influenza. Smokers are more likely to suffer from periodontal disease. Smoking can also cause the early onset of menopause among women, incontinence, and reduced fertility, and increases the risk of impotence by 50 percent. Approximately 5 million American children smoke. And each day, another 3,000 children become regular smokers. One out of every three of these children will eventually die from tobacco-related causes. The market for cigarettes is maintained by marketing tobacco products to young people who can replace older smokers who die or quit. As a result of these tactics, the tobacco industry creates a lifetime of health care problems and health care costs for these children, and they should be held accountable. In addition to recovery of costs, this lawsuit seeks injunctive relief to stop the tobacco companies from marketing to children and engaging in other deceptive and illegal practices. Tobacco-related illnesses cost the federal taxpayer approximately $25 billion a year, excluding the federal share of Medicaid. The Medicare program pays $20.5 billion annually to treat tobacco-related illnesses; the Veterans Administration pays $4 billion; the Department of Defense pays $1.6 billion; and the Indian Health Service pays $300 million. In addition, tobacco-related health care costs the Medicaid program nearly $17 billion a year, of which federal taxpayers pay nearly $10 billion. Overall, public and private payments for tobacco-related care total approximately $90 billion each year. Any recovery of Medicare costs from this litigation help would be deposited in the Medicare trust fund. If the lawsuit is successful, these dollars could add years to the solvency of Medicare or fund a prescription drug benefit for seniors. Veterans medical care would be strengthened as will. Voting for this amendment is the right thing to do for seniors, veterans, kids, and taxpayers. I urge my colleagues to support the Waxman/Evans/Hansen/Meehan/Stabenow amendment. Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of our time. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) has made the point very clearly that this is not about other lawsuits, it is about the tobacco lawsuit alone. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) and the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) and others who, from a medical perspective, have told us how important it is to pursue recovery for health care services. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans) has pointed out that for the veterans, we made a promise to them, we should not betray them. We should keep that promise to reach out and get funds for veterans health care. This lawsuit against tobacco should be permitted to proceed. We should not defund it through a rider on an appropriations bill. Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to vote for this amendment. It is the right thing to do. Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of our time. (Mr. ROGERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, contrary to what we have heard, this amendment and this debate is not about whether one likes or believes in smoking, or whether it is good or bad for us. That is not the issue here. The issue is not whether this lawsuit has merits or not. That is what we have heard here, arguing the merits or demerits of the lawsuit. It has nothing to do with that. The question here is whether or not the Justice Department violated the law itself in filing the lawsuit. Last year, for the first time that I have ever recalled, Justice asked the Congress for money to file a specific lawsuit. The Congress said no; the money was denied. Justice then secretly went to three agencies and said, give us the money to file this lawsuit. They said, wait a minute, where is your authority for that? They said, well, look at section 109 of the 1995 State Commerce-Justice bill where it says that agencies can reimburse the Justice Department for representing them in court, and they dragged the money out of those agencies and filed this lawsuit. Well, that statute that they are talking about is the crux of what we are [[Page H5045]] talking about here today. That statute merely says that the Government can be represented in court when it is sued. That was the intent of the Congress; no to be the suer. No one told the Congress that they had done this. We had to find it out on our own, and we did. So the Department of Justice, the place supposedly where the Nation's morals are protected, the place where moral authority resides in this government, if anywhere, itself is the one that is thwarting the will of the Congress; that is, twisting words for its own purposes, that is clearly violating the intent of the Congress in passing the act in the first place. Why was it passed in the first place? The Government was sued, a huge multibillion dollar suit by the contractor for the Navy Department when we canceled the A-12 aircraft contract. In 1995, Justice says, please, Congress, help us. Allow the Defense Department to pay us back for representing them in defending this lawsuit, and we said, we think that is a legitimate purpose, and we wrote it into our bill. That is the statute they are trying to use. Mr. Chairman, we all know, my colleagues know that that statute is for defending the Government, not suing, willy-nilly. Why? Because we provided in this bill $147 million for them to bring lawsuits; 1,034 lawyers we hire there to file lawsuits. We are paying those lawyers to file lawsuits. This statute is for defending the Government, not suing. And yet, they would have us believe that this great moral authority at the Justice Department is right. I say to my colleagues, the question here is not the merits of the lawsuit or any other lawsuit, the question here is the merits of the morality at the Justice Department. Does the end justify the means? They say yes; I say no. Is this a nation of laws or of men? I say laws, and the Congress better say laws. They are taking your prerogative here down there and they are using it as they choose. I say to my colleagues, reject the Justice Department's grab of other agencies' money, but more importantly, the Justice Department's seizure of power away from the Congress. Never was it intended in this Congress in the passage of this statute that it was to be funding lawsuits filed by the Government. No one ever anticipated that or thought about it when we passed the act. The intent of the Congress is being clarified in our bill, and that is, this statute is for defensive purposes only. Reject the Waxman amendment that would legitimize and reward a Justice Department that has seized your prerogative and is acting like they are the law themselves and we do not matter. Well, Mr. Chairman, the end does not justify the these means. I urge my colleagues to tell the Justice Department to obey the law. Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the Waxman-Evans-Hansen-Meehan-Stabenow amendment. This amendment would restore the permission of the Justice Department to use section 109 to receive funding from client agencies interested in aiding them in the tobacco litigation. The federal tobacco litigation is the only active litigation affected by this savings clause. This bill puts the Department of Justice at a disadvantage in its case against tobacco companies. These companies present a devastating product to this country. They target the younger generations because of their vulnerability to the admittedly addictive agent, nicotine and overwhelming amount of peer pressure. An RJR research planning memorandum says and I quote, ``Realistically, if our Company is to survive and prosper, over the long term we must get our share of the youth market. . . .'' A memorandum to Curtis Judge, President of Lorillard Tobacco Co. said that ``The success of NEWPORT has been fantastic during the past few years. . . . [T]he base of our business is the high school student. . . .'' Our nation's credit-worthy veterans become addicted while in the service to cigarettes. The companies themselves have admitted to the addicting qualities of nicotine. S.J. Green, BATCo Director of Research reported that ``The strong addiction to cigarette[s] removes freedom of choice from many individuals.'' Another injustice of this market is that it targets low-income areas, who traditionally have insufficient amounts of health care. In my district I have 165,000 people who live at or below the poverty level-- many of them suffer from the effects of tobacco. The American people spend $25 billion to treat tobacco-related illnesses while being given no choice whether to become addicted or not. The Department of Veterans Affairs spends over $1 billion a year treating tobacco-related illness. Therefore, it is impossible that their budget of $4 million will be used in the litigation. Most of their money goes toward treatment of people with tobacco-induced illnesses. The bill as it stands blocks the Department of Veterans Affairs from helping the Department of Justice in this lawsuit that greatly involves them. This is an injustice to the American people who expect the government to defend their right for healthy lives. I support the amendment to this bill because in 1998 the promise was made on this House floor that we would ``take all steps necessary to recover from tobacco companies the cost which would be incurred by the Department of Veterans Affairs for treatment of tobacco-related illnesses of veterans. It will delete the rider and give the veterans the chance to recover tens of billions of dollars for Veteran's Affairs' underfunded medical care. This measure helps the Department of Justice's requests pay back to the Federal Government for expenses due to the misconduct of the tobacco industry by unrestricted funding for the endeavor. It will further protect those targeted youths from being victimized for their vulnerability to addictive agents. The House should not be vulnerable to persuasion of any measure that cuts the prosecuting of those entities that pose harm to the country. We have the responsibility to protect the people from unnecessary health risks by keeping them aware of the health risks. The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate on this amendment has expired. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman). The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it. Recorded Vote Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote. A recorded vote was ordered. The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 215, noes 183, not voting 36, as follows: [Roll No. 319] AYES--215 Abercrombie Ackerman Allen Andrews Baird Baldacci Baldwin Barcia Barrett (WI) Becerra Bentsen Bereuter Berkley Berry Bilbray Bilirakis Blagojevich Blumenauer Boehlert Bonior Bono Borski Boswell Brady (PA) Brown (FL) Brown (OH) Calvert Campbell Capps Capuano Cardin Carson Castle Clay Conyers Costello Coyne Crowley Cummings Cunningham Davis (FL) Davis (IL) DeFazio DeGette Delahunt DeLauro Deutsch Dicks Dingell Doggett Dooley Doyle Dunn Edwards Ehlers Engel Eshoo Evans Farr Fattah Foley Ford Frank (MA) Franks (NJ) Frelinghuysen Frost Gallegly Ganske Gejdenson Gephardt Gilchrest Gilman Gonzalez Green (TX) Greenwood Gutierrez Hall (OH) Hansen Hastings (FL) Hinchey Hinojosa Hobson Hoeffel Holden Holt Hooley Horn Hoyer Inslee Jackson (IL) Jackson-Lee (TX) Jefferson Johnson (CT) Kanjorski Kaptur Kelly Kennedy Kildee Kilpatrick Kind (WI) King (NY) Kleczka Kucinich LaFalce LaHood Lampson Lantos Larson Lee Levin Lewis (GA) Lipinski LoBiondo Lofgren Lowey Luther Maloney (CT) Maloney (NY) Manzullo Markey Mascara Matsui McCarthy (MO) McCarthy (NY) McDermott McGovern McHugh McKeon McKinney McNulty Meehan Meek (FL) Meeks (NY) Menendez Metcalf Millender-McDonald Miller, George Minge Mink Moakley Moore Moran (VA) Morella Nadler Napolitano Neal Nethercutt Oberstar Obey Olver Ose Owens Pallone Pascrell Pastor Payne Pelosi Peterson (PA) Porter Portman Pryce (OH) Quinn Rahall Ramstad Regula Rivers Rodriguez Roemer Roukema Royce Rush Sabo Sanchez Sanders Sawyer Saxton Scarborough Schaffer Schakowsky Serrano Shays Sherman Sherwood Skelton Slaughter Smith (NJ) Snyder Stabenow Stark Strickland Stupak Tauscher Taylor (MS) Thompson (CA) Thune Thurman Traficant Turner Udall (CO) Udall (NM) Upton Velazquez Visclosky Walsh Waters Waxman Weiner Wexler Weygand Wilson Wise Wolf Woolsey Wu Young (FL) [[Page H5046]] NOES--183 Aderholt Archer Armey Baca Baker Ballenger Barr Barrett (NE) Bartlett Barton Bass Bateman Biggert Bishop Bliley Blunt Boehner Bonilla Boucher Boyd Brady (TX) Bryant Burr Burton Buyer Callahan Camp Cannon Chabot Chambliss Chenoweth-Hage Clement Clyburn Coble Collins Combest Condit Cooksey Cramer Crane Cubin Danner Davis (VA) Deal DeLay DeMint Diaz-Balart Dickey Doolittle Dreier Duncan Ehrlich Emerson English Etheridge Everett Ewing Fletcher Forbes Fossella Fowler Gibbons Gillmor Goode Goodlatte Goodling Gordon Goss Graham Granger Green (WI) Gutknecht Hall (TX) Hastings (WA) Hayes Hayworth Hefley Herger Hill (IN) Hill (MT) Hilleary Hilliard Hoekstra Hostettler Houghton Hulshof Hunter Hutchinson Hyde Isakson Jenkins John Johnson, Sam Jones (NC) Kingston Knollenberg Kolbe Largent Latham LaTourette Lewis (CA) Lewis (KY) Linder Lucas (KY) Lucas (OK) Martinez McInnis McIntyre Mica Miller (FL) Miller, Gary Mollohan Moran (KS) Murtha Ney Northup Norwood Nussle Ortiz Oxley Packard Paul Pease Peterson (MN) Petri Phelps Pickering Pickett Pitts Pombo Price (NC) Reynolds Riley Rogan Rogers Rohrabacher Ros-Lehtinen Ryan (WI) Ryun (KS) Sandlin Sanford Scott Sensenbrenner Sessions Shadegg Shaw Shimkus Shows Shuster Simpson Sisisky Skeen Smith (MI) Smith (TX) Souder Spence Spratt Stearns Stenholm Stump Sununu Sweeney Talent Tancredo Tanner Taylor (NC) Terry Thomas Thompson (MS) Thornberry Tiahrt Toomey Vitter Walden Wamp Watkins Watt (NC) Watts (OK) Weldon (FL) Weldon (PA) Weller Whitfield Wicker NOT VOTING--36 Bachus Berman Canady Clayton Coburn Cook Cox Dixon Filner Gekas Istook Johnson, E. B. Jones (OH) Kasich Klink Kuykendall Lazio Leach McCollum McCrery McIntosh Myrick Pomeroy Radanovich Rangel Reyes Rothman Roybal-Allard Salmon Smith (WA) Tauzin Tierney Towns Vento Wynn Young (AK) {time} 1019 Messrs. SKEEN, SHADEGG and HILLIARD changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.'' Mrs. BONO, Mr. PORTMAN and Mr. CALVERT changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.'' So the amendment was agreed to. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman the designee of the gentleman from Kentucky? Mr. HUTCHINSON. I am, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arkansas is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the committee for this recognition. I rise to discuss the issue of methamphetamine lab cleanup, an issue of great importance to my State of Arkansas and to the rest of rural America. Let me also thank the gentleman from Kentucky for including funds in the bill for meth lab cleanup for fiscal year 2001. This much needed appropriation bill that provides meth lab cleanup for 2001 will ensure that we do not find ourselves in a crisis situation again. As we all know, the DEA ran out of funds for this critical program in mid-March and many of us have been working to find additional fiscal year 2000 funds through a variety of sources. Unfortunately, the need is still pressing. I would like to inquire whether the gentleman from Kentucky would be willing to continue working with me and other interested Members to address the fiscal year 2000 shortfall before the end of this fiscal year. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) who has also been very active in this effort. Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arkansas for yielding, and I would like to thank him for his leadership on this issue. I would like to reinforce the importance of funding for meth lab cleanup for Wisconsin and the majority of rural America. Our local law enforcement agencies do not possess the resources to fund meth lab cleanup, and therefore we currently have two meth labs in my district that are sitting and waiting until funds can be made available from the DEA to clean them up. This presents a serious safety and environmental danger. I would also like to inquire of the gentleman from Kentucky if he will work to continue to address the shortfall in the current fiscal year for the meth lab cleanup. Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HUTCHINSON. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky. Mr. ROGERS. I thank both of the gentlemen for their leadership on this very important issue. It is a matter that we have been dealing with in our subcommittee now for some time attempting to find the funds to be able to adequately fight this battle. I will remain committed to working with them and with the Senate and the administration to resolve the fiscal year 2000 funding shortfall. Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the gentleman for that commitment and for his leadership on this issue. Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman the designee of the gentleman from Kentucky? Mr. GOODLATTE. I am, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I was going to say that I rise to do this, but I guess I will just say that I seek to engage in a colloquy with the chairman of the subcommittee. The chairman has been very diligent in his efforts to provide funding for various law enforcement needs. I greatly appreciate that. One of the areas is in the category of missing and exploited children. One of the areas that is of grave concern to me and a great many other Members of Congress is the problem of child pornography and child sexual exploitation on the Internet. It is a very, very serious problem. In the past, funds have been specifically designated for the purpose of providing funding to State and local law enforcement agencies to combat this. In last year's legislation, $6 million was so appropriated. I had intended to offer an amendment this year which provides that that $6 million or more be specifically designated for that purpose. The gentleman from Kentucky has indicated that this can be taken care of in conference and that this money will indeed ultimately be so designated. I hope to engage in a colloquy here to find out if indeed that is the case and he can indicate to me his plans for providing these funds for this specific purpose. They are a part of the, as I understand it, $19 million that is for missing and exploited children in general. At this point the chairman has not earmarked any of that money, but we are concerned that this money not go somewhere else and is provided to local law enforcement for the purpose of combating this serious problem on the Internet. Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky. Mr. ROGERS. I will continue to work with the gentleman to provide funding for this program at least at last year's level. Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman. That is very helpful. Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman the designee of the gentleman from Kentucky? Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Yes, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the gentleman from Kentucky in a colloquy. Mr. Chairman, this bill appropriates $130 million for the Department of Justice to distribute to State and local governments under the Criminal Identification Technical Improvement Act. Mr. ROGERS