[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 77 (Monday, June 19, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H4641-H4651]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND 
             INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001

  The Committee resumed its sitting.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, decades of deceit by the tobacco industry has caused 
Federal taxpayers to spend billions for smoking-related illnesses.
  The Justice Department is seeking recovery of these funds, as well as 
injunctive relief to stop the companies from marketing to children and 
engaging in other deceptive and illegal practices. They need to be able 
to have the resources for that suit. Now, the beneficiaries of that 
suit would be the Departments of Health, Education and Welfare, or the 
Health Care Financing Administration, who has spent so much money on 
Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement for tobacco-related illnesses, and 
the Veterans Administration, because so many thousands of veterans have 
suffered and died from tobacco-related illnesses.
  This amendment would say that the Veterans Administration cannot move 
this money to the Justice Department to prosecute these cases. The 
idea, the reason, the motivation is so that this suit cannot go 
forward.
  The Veterans Administration spends $4 billion a year treating 
tobacco-related illnesses. We passed a law, the Medical Care Recovery 
Act, that says that any costs recovered by the Justice Department would 
be returned to the Veterans Administration. They desperately need that 
money. Why would we not seek that money from what is the source, the 
cause of much of that suffering and death?
  This rider is wrong. It should not have been attached to this bill. 
For decades, tobacco companies have deliberately misled Americans 
regarding the risks and the harmful effects of smoking while 400,000 
people have died each year from tobacco-related illnesses.
  As recently as 1998, within the last 2 years, the chairman of Phillip 
Morris testified under oath and said, I am unclear in my own mind as to 
whether anybody dies from cigarette smoking-related illnesses. That man 
is an intelligent, otherwise responsible man, so he must have been 
deliberately trying to deceive the court and the American people.
  In my mind, there can be no other conclusion. That is not tolerable. 
If this Congress is not willing to reimburse the Veterans 
Administration for the costs of this deception, then we should do it 
for the 3,000 teenagers who start smoking every day, at least for the 
1,000 who will die because they did.
  This amendment should be supported. It is the right thing to do.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I think there is no better term for this rider of which 
the Waxman amendment addresses than the smoke and mirrors rider, the 
misrepresentation rider, the distortion rider. The legislation to 
prohibit a legitimate litigative approach to redeeming billions and 
billions of dollars or at least millions and millions of dollars that 
have been utilized by this government in its various medical care 
accounts to treat tobacco-related illnesses.
  It is long overdue. Now, one might read this particular rider as an 
amendment that is on a white horse, a good amendment, a good rider, 
because it seems to suggest that the bad guys are trying to take 
minimally $4 million out of VA, and that money would impact or take 
away from caring for the veterans of this Nation. That is why it is the 
smoke and mirrors rider, and that this amendment to strike of the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) clarifies and tells the truth.

                              {time}  1915

  In actuality, this amendment is taking or striking monies that the 
administration had already designated in a VA litigation account, 
separate and apart from any dollars dealing with the medical needs of 
our veterans, and this amendment specifically states that there would 
be no provision that would take the $4 million out of any of the 
accounts that would deal with VA health care. Plain and simple.
  What this rider does not say is that its basic initiative is to be 
hand and glove with the tobacco industry. Its basic premise is to 
ensure that this government does not rightly have the opportunity to 
engage in legitimate litigation in the courts of law to redeem the 
funds that have been paid, hundreds of billions of dollars, as we have 
paid in Medicare, Medicaid and VA health needs, because people have 
been injured and have been ill and even died from tobacco-related 
injuries or illnesses.
  It is interesting to note that this is $4 million which we talk 
about, but yet we find the Department of Veterans Affairs and the 
Department of Defense have spent $4 billion and $1.6 billion 
respectively per year treating tobacco-related illnesses.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, you would think that that dwarfs this simple 
process which the administration has designed to rightly have the 
Department of Justice secure from HHS, Health and Human Services, the 
Department of Veterans Affairs and other agencies that would rightly 
benefit from the refund of dollars gained by prevailing litigation that 
says we have been wrongly required to pay for these needs of these 
particular citizens who have fallen ill, and, now, after determining 
the untruthfulness of the executives of the tobacco company who 
represented that tobacco was not addictive and then were found out and 
who have, in certain instances, settled these cases and, in other 
instances, lost in courts of law in various States, such as the 
settlement we have and the litigation in the State of Florida.
  How can we then deny the opportunity for this amendment to prevail in 
order to allow this litigation to go forward? Do we know what else is 
damaging and happening? Do we realize that 430,000 of our citizens die 
prematurely because of tobacco use? Do we realize the number of 
children, about 5 million children, that smoke in the United States, 
and each day another 3,000 become regular smokers, and, of these 
children, one-third will eventually die from tobacco-related causes?
  Mr. Chairman, it is high time now to get rid of these kinds of false 
debates on the floor of the House and the smoke and mirror riders that 
are put on legislative bills and appropriation bills that are passing 
through this House. We have seen many of them undermine the intent and 
purpose of good will.
  We need the dollars to pursue this litigation. We need to recoup the 
enormous dollars we have lost in treating these terribly ill people and 
those that have died and lost their battle with cancer and other 
illnesses, and we need to stop this misrepresentation of plucking 
dollars out of the VA-HUD under the pretense that we are denying 
veterans health care. What we are actually doing is lifting up their 
health care opportunities.
  This is a bad rider. This is a good amendment, and I support the 
Waxman amendment. Let us eliminate this bad language.
  Mr. Chairman. I rise to speak out against this most recent attempt to 
undermine the ability of the Department of Justice to recover the 
potentially hundreds of billions of dollars paid by American taxpayers 
to treat tobacco-illnesses.
  Evidently, contained within H.R. 4635 are legislative provisions that 
would block the continuance of current federal tobacco litigation.

[[Page H4642]]

The rider in this appropriation bill expressly states that no money 
budgeted for litigation support may be used ``for the purposes of 
supporting litigation against the tobacco companies.
  To allow such a rider to pass would degrade the quality of H.R. 4635 
and send the message to the victims of the tobacco industry that 
Congress is not concerned about the lives and the illnesses resulting 
from the tobacco companies; exploitation of cigarettes addiction among 
the American public.
  The dire statistics surrounding tobacco use cannot be denied. Tobacco 
use is responsible for more than 430,000 premature deaths each year. 
Tobacco use is the leading cause of premature death in the United 
States, twice the amount caused by AIDS, alcohol, motor vehicles, 
homicide, drugs, and suicide combined.
  Among our youth, about 5 million children smoke in the United States 
and each day another 3,000 children become regular smokers. Of these 
children, one-third will eventually died from tobacco-related causes.

       Already, the American people had begun to reap the benefits 
     of the Department of Justice's litigation efforts, such as in 
     my home state of Texas where the tobacco settlement proceeds 
     have been used to fund secondary and higher education, The 
     University of Texas Health Centers and Cancer Centers, 
     minority health research, mental health and retardation 
     services and child immunizations just to name a few.

  Additionally, many of the funds received from this tobacco litigation 
would be returned to the Department of Veterans Affairs or the 
Department of Defense because these department spend $4 billion and 
$1.6 billion respectively per year treating tobacco-related illnesses.
  A primary concern of mine is the authority of the Justice Department 
to seek out court orders to prevent tobacco companies from marketing to 
children.
  The legislative provisions attached to this appropriations bill would 
to all intents and purposes halt the tobacco lawsuit and prevent the 
Attorney General from making whole the American people who have 
suffered too long at the hands of the tobacco industry.
  The continuation of the federal lawsuit is this country's best chance 
to effectively regulate the tobacco industry and prevent further harm 
to the public. I urge my colleagues not to support the legislative 
provisions halting the continuation of the federal tobacco litigation.
  Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am speaking on behalf of the chairman's position on 
this amendment. I think his position is correct.
  I also want to note, and then I am going to sit down, that there is 
another reason. This is the gentleman's 53rd birthday, and I would like 
to give my vote to him as a birthday present.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Waxman-Evans-Meehan 
amendment. We should allow the Justice Department to continue to fight 
the tobacco companies on behalf of America's veterans and on behalf of 
America's children.
  It is past time that the tobacco industry is held accountable for all 
of their years of deceit. By allowing the Justice Department to 
continue its suit against the tobacco industry, we 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 are 
now suffering from tobacco-related illnesses that to this day the 
tobacco industry denies are the result of cigarettes.
  Each year the VA spends $4 billion treating illnesses caused by 
cigarettes. The Defense Department spends $1.6 billion. Medicare spends 
another $20.5 billion per year. The costs sap the strength out of our 
health care system and rob our veterans of the quality of care that 
they deserve, and this money goes directly to paying for veterans 
health care.
  The tobacco industry knows that people who use their products will 
not be around for long, so they have to go out and they find what they 
call ``replacement smokers.'' ``Replacement smoker'' is the euphemism, 
a callous euphemism, that tobacco executives use for our children. They 
see our kids as the route to future profits, even though they know for 
a fact that of the 3,000 kids that they hook each day, one-third of 
them, over 1,000 of our kids, will die of a tobacco-related illness. 
And these people should not be held accountable for this? It is 
unconscionable.
  So why would someone put a provision into this bill that would 
protect the tobacco companies from being held accountable? Why should 
they place the needs of the tobacco industry ahead of veterans health 
care, our children and the taxpayers that have to foot the bill for 
these health care costs? Could it be, could it be because the tobacco 
industry has spent over $31.8 million on political contributions, 
roughly 80 percent of which have gone to the Republican Party? Could it 
be because Philip Morris has given Republicans over $1 million in soft 
money this year alone and is the Republican Party's second largest 
contributor?
  It is about time that this Congress said loud and clear that the days 
of special treatment for the tobacco industry are over. This is not for 
trial lawyers, it does not rob money from veterans, and it is well 
within the law to use these funds for affirmative litigation. That is 
all the tobacco companies want, is to create a smoke screen, and we 
have had enough of it.
  Mr. Chairman, we are never going to forget the image, the visual 
image in our mind of that hearing when the tobacco industry CEOs raised 
their right hands, swearing, swearing, that nicotine was not addictive. 
They lied on that day, as they continue to lie about the health 
problems of their product. And now they should be protected? They 
should not be protected on the floor of this House. That would be 
egregious.
  This amendment will help to strengthen veterans health care in this 
country. It will finally hold tobacco industry accountable for their 
lies. Support veterans health care, protect our children from the 
tobacco industry's predatory practices, support this amendment.
  Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. Prior to coming to 
Congress, I was a reconstructive surgeon, and I did a lot of my 
training in VA hospitals. I can tell you, I have taken care of some 
pretty horrible examples of the victims of tobacco addiction, veterans 
who were addicted to tobacco long before it became well known that 
tobacco was such an addicting substance and that it had such harmful 
consequences.
  I can remember one veteran very well when I was chief resident in 
general surgery. This gentleman had a disease called thromboangiitis 
obliterans, which is like an allergic reaction to tobacco smoke. It 
causes the small blood vessels in your body to thrombose, to occlude, 
so you undergo periodic autoamputations of your extremities. You lose 
the blood supply to your fingers; they fall off. You lose the blood 
supply to your toes; they fall off.
  This gentleman was so addicted to nicotine that, despite this process 
going on, and despite the fact that he had lost both legs above the 
knees and all of his fingers except for one finger on his right hand, 
he could not stop smoking, so he had devised a little wire cigarette 
holder that somebody would put the cigarette in and then loop it over 
his finger so that he could smoke.
  Make no mistake about it, this is one of the most addicting 
substances we know. We know pharmacologically that nicotine is as 
addictive as heroin or cocaine, and, make no mistake about it, your 
vote on this amendment will indicate whether you are for the tobacco 
industry or whether you are for their being responsible for their 
activities. You should vote for the Waxman-Hansen amendment.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, tobacco is the number one cause of death in the United 
States right now. It is responsible for more than 430,000 deaths each 
year, or 1 in every 5, and I am willing to bet that tobacco deaths have 
hit every Member of this House in some way. It is a well documented and 
scientific fact that smoking causes chronic lung disease, coronary 
heart disease, stroke, cancer of the lung, larynx, esophageus, mouth, 
bladder, cervix, pancreas and kidney, and the disease we just heard 
about from my colleague. This is a horrible, horrible disease.
  As you assess tonight, my colleagues, whether or not tobacco 
companies deserve the special treatment that the rider in this bill 
would occasion, I hope

[[Page H4643]]

you will remember that for decades now tobacco companies have been 
targeting our children. For example, a 1975 memorandum to R. B. 
Seligman, Philip Morris vice president for research and development 
states, ``Marlboro's phenomenal growth rate in the past has been 
attributable in large part to our high market penetration among younger 
smokers 15- to 19-year-olds.'' And Marlboro is not the only one. In 
1978, Curtis Judge, the President of Lorillard Tobacco Company, 
received a memo saying, ``The success of Newport has been fantastic 
during the past few years. The base of our business is the high school 
student. It is the in brand to smoke if you want to be one of the 
group.''
  Recent research has indicated that tobacco companies are targeting 
teens today through advertisements in all of the mediums they care 
about, including magazines and billboards.
  Now, we do not know how this lawsuit will turn out. We do not know if 
it will be successful. But why on Earth, when you have an industry with 
this kind of track record, should you give them the kind of special 
exemption that this bill would give them? It makes no sense, and it is 
dead wrong.
  According to recent estimates, the Federal Government expenditures 
for the treatment of tobacco-related illness totals $22.2 billion in 
Medicare, the Veterans Administration, the Federal Employees Health 
Care Benefits and the Indian Health Services. In fact, the courts 
recently held that the Indians must go through the Federal Government 
to seek remedies versus the industry because the main health funding is 
a Federal program.
  So not only is it wrong to give the tobacco companies a pass, it is 
also fiscally irresponsible. We are spending billions of dollars to 
treat tobacco-related illnesses, and, frankly, if there is evidence of 
racketeering, if there is evidence of the wrongdoing that is alleged in 
this lawsuit, why on Earth should the United States Congress give the 
tobacco industry a pass? It makes no sense, it is wrong, and we cannot 
do it.
  I would suggest to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, it is 
the wrong thing to do, both fiscally and from a public health 
standpoint, and I would urge the adoption of this very fine amendment.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise at this time to support the Waxman amendment to 
allow the Government to reclaim its damage from tobacco companies. 
Tobacco use is the single most preventable cause of death and disease 
in our society. Tobacco products cause more than 400,000 deaths in the 
U.S. each year. Each person who dies of tobacco-related lung cancer 
loses an average of 14 years of expected life. I again repeat, each 
person loses over 14 years of expected life.
  In addition to that, in terms of the quality of life of the 
individual, I do not know if anyone has ever witnessed someone who 
suffers from emphysema, where they have the difficulty where before 
they had strength, they are unable to even walk from their bedroom to 
the kitchen to be able to get a cup of coffee, the quality of life that 
is also lost is not even recorded.
  The record is clear that the health care and compensation costs have 
gone up as a result of tobacco-related illnesses. We all recognize this 
fully.

                              {time}  1930

  Our government must be able to provide proof to the courts, so that 
we need to go to court to assure that these resources are obtained.
  Remember that in 1998, we took veterans' tobacco compensation from 
our transportation projects. At that time we made it clear that the 
Attorney General should recover this from the tobacco companies. The 
rider in the VA-HUD bill flies in the face of that commitment. Remember 
that this amendment takes only the legal funds at the VA; it does not 
take away any other resources in terms of health. So it is important 
for us to move forward in that direction.
  The tobacco industry's denials about the deadly effects of smoking 
are not stopping over 3,000 youngsters who start smoking every single 
day. American youth is relying on the Congress to be protective.
  I would share with my colleagues a particular research project that 
was done in Austin, Texas, when I was a legislator where they took 
youngsters from one of the high schools, these were high school 
youngsters and it was a research project where the students were 
allowed to go around the neighborhoods and purchase cigarettes. One of 
the things that they found when they provided that testimony before us, 
they laid hundreds of packages of cigarettes before us, and each one 
had the label where they had bought those cigarettes. These were all 
youngsters underage that had bought those cigarettes. These were 
youngsters that were sold those cigarettes. It was not surprising that 
on the east side of Austin and in those sectors where the minority 
populations were that this is where the most number of packages were 
sold.
  In addition to that, as we move forward, I would remind my colleagues 
that when veterans joined the military, they were also provided with 
access to cigarettes, so that it becomes important for us to recognize 
that they recognize that one of the reasons why they go after the 
young, that that is when they can catch those individuals, because as 
adults, a lot of times we know better than to smoke. And they recognize 
that if anyone is going to be smoking it is if they catch them early 
enough. So every effort needs to be taken to make sure that we do the 
right thing. We have an obligation to ourselves and to our country and 
to our veterans to make sure that we go after the companies that have 
been abusing.
  The VA spends over $4 billion annually treating tobacco-related 
illnesses. Under the Medical Care Recovery Act, any recovery of this 
cost would be returned to the VA health programs. In effect, the rider 
blocks the VA from obtaining potential tens of billions of dollars for 
the recovery and for the use of our veterans. It is also disheartening 
that the 106th Congress would act to prevent the Department of Justice 
from pushing forward the claims. The 105th Congress had denied 
veterans' compensation for tobacco-related illnesses in Public Law 105-
178 with the express recommendation that the Attorney General take all 
steps necessary to recover from tobacco companies the cost of that 
treatment. It is our obligation, it is our responsibility, and I would 
ask that we move forward.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask my colleagues to please vote to stop this 
outrageous gift to the tobacco industry and let us move forward and do 
the right thing and vote ``aye'' on the Waxman amendment.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Waxman amendment, which 
would repeal the provision that restricts the Department of Veterans 
Affairs from transferring funds to the Justice Department to support 
tobacco litigation.
  Each year, the Federal Government spends an estimated $25 billion on 
tobacco-related health costs, $25 billion. Specifically, the VA 
contributes more than $4 billion to this outrageous tab. This is wrong.
  That is why in the 105th Congress, the House called on the Attorney 
General and the Secretary of Veterans' Affairs to take all the 
necessary steps to recover from the tobacco industry the costs incurred 
by the VA for the treatment of veterans with tobacco-related illnesses. 
In return, the Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against the 
tobacco industry.
  Unfortunately, some of my colleagues are now attempting to derail the 
DOJ's efforts. This is evident by the three antilitigation riders 
attached to this bill, as well as the Commerce, Justice, State and 
Defense appropriations measures. Under section 109 of the fiscal year 
1995 appropriations bill, the DOJ is allowed to seek reimbursement from 
other Federal agencies likely to benefit from litigation undertaken by 
the Department. Opponents of this amendment will say that section 109 
was intended to help the DOJ fund only defense of litigation. That 
simply is not true. Look at the record. For example, the DOJ has used 
this authority to pursue litigation against oil companies and in 
Customs fraud cases.
  So why is this body awarding the tobacco industry special protection 
at the expense of the public's health? Why

[[Page H4644]]

are my colleagues fighting to protect an industry that has come before 
this body and untruthfully denied for decades that nicotine is 
addictive and dangerous? Why are some working to protect an industry 
that lures in an estimated 3,000 American teenagers every day? It does 
not make any sense.
  Mr. Chairman, the evidence is clear. Cigarette companies have 
targeted our youth. About 5 million children smoke in the United 
States. Of these, one out of three will eventually die from tobacco-
related causes. The Department of Justice's suit not only seeks to 
recover funds, it is also aimed at stopping companies from marketing to 
our children.
  Well, I can tell my colleagues as a mother and as a grandmother, I 
urge my colleagues to support the Waxman amendment and help to protect 
the health and well-being of our Nation's children and veterans.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I rise in support of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, this amendment 
seeks to prevent this Congress from betraying the veterans of the 
United States, a betrayal of a promise made to them by this Congress 
only 2 years ago.
  Two years ago, in the teeth of opposition from all of the veterans' 
organizations, Congress repealed the ability, repealed the ability of 
veterans to recover in disability payments for tobacco-related 
illnesses. But in partial compensation for that deed, the same bill, 
section 8209 of the law, Public Law 105-178, called on the Attorney 
General, I am quoting now, and the Secretary of Veterans' Affairs, as 
appropriate, ``to take all steps necessary to recover from tobacco 
companies amounts corresponding to the costs which could be incurred by 
the Department of Veterans' Affairs for treatment of tobacco-related 
illnesses of veterans if such treatments were authorized by law.''
  In other words, with one hand Congress said, we want to take $16 
billion that we are paying out annually to veterans in compensation for 
disabilities caused by tobacco smoking; and we are going to say, you 
cannot do it any more. We are going to take it away from the veterans. 
But we are not going to be quite such hideous people; we are going to 
see that we ask the Attorney General and the Department of Veterans 
Affairs to sue the tobacco companies and see if they can recover money 
on behalf of the veterans that will go to the veterans in compensation 
instead of the disability payments.
  Now this bill comes. In 1999, the Department of Justice initiated a 
lawsuit, a Federal lawsuit, against the tobacco companies seeking to 
recover claims against tobacco companies, as most of the States have 
done, as many local government cities and towns across this country 
have done. Why should the Federal Government not recover on behalf of 
our citizens and in particular on behalf of our veterans recover monies 
because of damages they sustained because of the improper actions of 
the tobacco companies, especially after Congress promised in 1998 to 
urge the Department of Justice to do so?
  The Department of Justice initiated the lawsuits, and what do we have 
now? In this bill and in other appropriation bills, we have directions 
that say, you may not use any funds for this lawsuit; not for lawsuits 
in general, for this lawsuit on the tobacco companies. Congress is 
coming in almost like a bill of attainder and saying, we do not like 
this particular lawsuit; we do not want you to recover money for the 
veterans. We want the veterans to continue to suffer uncompensated, not 
compensated through disabilities, we closed that off 2 years ago; and 
we will not allow you to try to recover benefits for them through a 
lawsuit. We are afraid of what the courts may find.
  The tobacco companies are going to defend themselves in court; and 
maybe the court, after hearing the evidence, will say they are not 
liable, but we do not want to take that chance. We want to say to them, 
you do not have to defend yourselves in court because of your actions. 
We will not let the Attorney General and the Department of Veterans 
Affairs participate in a lawsuit to recover the money. Never mind that 
we promised it 2 years ago. Never mind that this is completing the 
betrayal of the veterans that this Congress started 2 years ago. How 
can we not hang our heads in shame if we do not adopt this amendment to 
change the policy in this bill?
  I submit, Mr. Chairman, that this amendment must pass in order to 
save the honor of this Congress so that it cannot be said that this 
Congress, and I must add in good conscience, the Republican leadership 
of this Congress, consciously and deliberately betrayed the veterans of 
the United States because they preferred that the tobacco companies not 
have to defend themselves in court and not have to pay the veterans for 
damages they caused them, if the court would find they caused them such 
damages. Never mind the promise that this Congress and the Republican 
leadership made 2 years ago. Now it is time to renege on that promise, 
because now it is time to deliver on that promise; and it was never 
intended that that promise be delivered on.
  If we are people of honor, if we are people of honesty and probity, 
if we want to be able to not hang our heads in shame before our 
veterans, we will vote yes on this amendment.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I do want to point out that it is the birthday of our esteemed 
chairman, and I hope he will take all of these testimonials as a 
``happy birthday to you,'' Mr. Chairman.
  I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  I want to frame this issue so that everyone understands what is at 
stake. We have the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Paralyzed Veterans of 
America, the Disabled American Veterans, AMVets. They have all asked 
for an ``aye'' vote on this amendment. On the other side is the tobacco 
industry, and they would like this amendment defeated.
  Now, the reason the tobacco industry wants this amendment defeated is 
that they would like to stop the litigation against them by the Federal 
Government. It will be easy for them to succeed if they could have 
riders in appropriations bills that defund the lawsuit. And the 
Attorney General of the United States said, if this lawsuit is defunded 
by this rider in the VA-HUD bill and another rider in the Department of 
Defense bill and another rider that will be in the Commerce, State, 
Justice bill, then she will not be able to go forward with the 
litigation.
  Now, to give my colleagues some background, in 1998 there was a 
promise made to the veterans when, in this transportation bill, they 
sought to get some funds for transportation use; and the bill provided 
that those funds that otherwise would go to take care of veterans who 
were disabled because of tobacco smoking would no longer be available 
to them for that use; and in 1998, when that money was taken out of 
veterans' health care, there was an explicit understanding that the 
Federal Government would pursue a litigation against the tobacco 
industry to make up for those funds.
  Well, we are now at the point where they are looking to see whether 
we are going to keep that promise.
  In 1999, the Justice Department brought the lawsuit, and Congress 
could have provided a different way to fund it. We could have funded 
it. We could have provided a clear appropriation for the lawsuit. But 
Congress refused to do that. So the Justice Department went to the 
various agencies to seek a transfer of funds. They went to agencies 
that are affected. They did this under a law passed by this Congress in 
1995, and they went to affected agencies and they went to the 
Department of Health and Human Services and said, you are going to be 
affected by this lawsuit, because if we can recover money from the 
tobacco industry for Medicare, that will allow us to fund Medicare; 
and, therefore, we want to have you help us through the department 
appropriation pursue the litigation.

                              {time}  1945

  They also went to the Department of Veterans Affairs and asked for a 
transfer of funds. That is the issue before us right now, it is the 
Department of Veterans Affairs.
  The amendment says that the Department of Veterans Affairs can 
transfer money, but only from that

[[Page H4645]]

area provided for litigation and administrative expenses, not out of 
the health care budget, not out of the money to be used for health care 
services.
  If we do not adopt this amendment to stop this rider in this bill and 
we do not strike the riders in the other bills, then the lawsuit is 
going to be dismissed because the Department of Justice, on behalf of 
the American taxpayers, will not be able to continue to sue the tobacco 
industry and hold them accountable for the harm that they have done to 
people for whom we have paid their health care services.
  If that happens, it will be the greatest betrayal of all to the 
veterans and to others. So I urge support for this amendment to strike 
the rider that was placed in the bill to prevent the funds from being 
used to pursue the litigation against the tobacco industry.
  Let us not betray the veterans. We have made so many promises to the 
veterans of the country. We have promised them greater health care 
services, and we have not funded all that we have promised them. If we 
could pursue this litigation, perhaps we could get the funds to keep 
the promises to the veterans.
  I urge support for the amendment.
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment that is 
before us. Mr. Chairman, this is an issue that has been spoken to by 
this Congress. This amendment is clearly an effort to circumvent the 
will of the Congress. It is also an improper way to insert itself 
between States and the courts in efforts to settle this issue in a 
proper way. In my opinion, this is an improper use of the Department of 
Justice, to try and do things that are driven by personal political 
agendas.
  That is not to say there is anything wrong with the personal 
political agenda that continues to attack tobacco farmers and people 
who make a living in the tobacco industry, but there is another side to 
this story. I appreciate the putting together of a very good bill by 
the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh), and I think the issue 
here of keeping this $20 million of hard-earned taxpayers' money from 
doing things that we do not intend as a Congress to do is a wise and 
proper thing.
  Last fall North Carolina and other States were besieged by a 
horrendous hurricane. President Clinton went to Tarboro, North 
Carolina, and spoke very eloquently about the need to help our tobacco 
farmers, and then turned around and provided another Federal lawsuit to 
continue to break the backs of their efforts to support their families.
  I wrote to the President on September 24 and asked him to reconsider, 
because after 6\1/2\ years of being besieged by one assault after 
another from the Federal government, this was not the right thing to 
do.
  Again, Mr. Chairman, I would respectfully request a strong no vote on 
this amendment because it is the wrong thing at the wrong time.
  Mr. BLAGOJEVICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, to me there are two issues here. They are very simple. 
Number one, do we keep our promises, that is the first issue. The 
second issue is, when it comes to issues of facts that may be in 
contention, who do we believe?
  First of all, who do we keep our promises to? In this instance the 
question is, will we keep our promises to the veterans of the United 
States who fought, put their lives on the line, and represent and 
defend our country?
  Back in 1998, Mr. Chairman, Congress passed a highway bill that had 
in it an unusual provision. It ended the policy of providing disabled 
veterans benefits from tobacco-related illnesses. That was a spurious 
provision.
  Notwithstanding, and let me say that I think it was not only spurious 
but I opposed that provision, but notwithstanding that, that bill 
passed. But within the same bill was a promise, a promise that told the 
Attorney General and the VA Department to sue the tobacco companies so 
more money, more money will be available for veterans' health care.
  More money for veterans' health care. That is the promise. I strongly 
support keeping that promise. That is why I support the Waxman-Evans-
Hansen-Meehan-Stabenow amendment, because it honors the commitment we 
made to veterans back in 1998.
  With regard to who do we believe with regard to a contention of 
facts, the question is, do we believe the tobacco companies, the same 
tobacco companies who, back in 1994, the seven top executives came 
before the subcommittee of the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), 
and all of them under oath denied a couple of key questions?
  One, they denied before his committee under oath and before all of 
America that nicotine was addictive. How many Americans really believed 
that?
  Number two, the same seven executives swore under oath and answered 
the question were they intentionally marketing their product to 
children, and they said they were not, while at the same time Joe Camel 
ads were gracing billboards all across America.
  For the question of believing in the tobacco companies or a question 
of believing the VFW, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, the Disabled 
American Veterans, and AmVets, I choose to believe the latter group, 
the veterans' groups who are looking out for the interests of the 
veterans, and not the tobacco companies, who have not been honest and 
provide a product that, whether one chooses to use it or not, makes 
people sick and ultimately causes deaths.
  Mr. Chairman, we believe that we need to provide more money for 
veterans and veterans' health care. Supporting the Waxman amendment 
would do that.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh).
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to try to sum up some of the arguments 
that have been made tonight, comment on some of them, and hopefully 
refute some of them.
  First of all, Mr. Chairman, the tobacco companies never came to me to 
ask us to do this. I am not sensitive to their arguments, quite 
frankly. I do not like their product. It smells bad. It is addictive. 
It makes people sick.
  But that is not the point. The point here is that the Justice 
Department should be responsible for paying for this lawsuit. They did 
not come to the Congress when they sued Microsoft. Microsoft is the 
world's largest and richest corporation. The Justice Department took 
them on on their own. They have thousands and thousands of lawyers. 
They have plenty of money and plenty of lawyers to conduct any and all 
suits against tobacco companies.
  So what is going on here? I am not sure exactly, but I think it is a 
lot about politics, because it is very, very popular to beat up the 
tobacco companies. Everybody should do it. But this bill does not 
prevent the lawsuit. This bill does not enhance tobacco companies' 
ability to make kids smoke. I have heard that over and over and over 
tonight. This bill does not have anything to do with kids, it has 
everything to do with veterans and their health care.
  We have heard Member after Member get up and say, we do not have 
enough money in this bill for veterans' medical care. If Members 
support this amendment, they are going to take millions more out of 
veterans' medical care to give it to the Justice Department to run the 
lawsuit.
  Quite frankly, if the Justice Department runs the lawsuit, Mr. 
Chairman, it is okay with me. If they win, I hope the administration 
will use those resources for the veterans department, but they have not 
promised to do that yet. It is still very, very vague.
  The point here is if Members vote for this amendment, they are taking 
money out of veterans' medical care and giving it to the Justice 
Department. It is that simple.
  So forget about all this other argument, these other arguments, 
because they are not salient. They do not apply to this issue. The 
issue here is, does the money go to veterans' medical care or does it 
go to Justice Department lawyers. They have their own lawyers and their 
own budget. They are spending enough money, so they do not need to take 
this.

[[Page H4646]]

  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I just want to respond to the point that was just made. The bill out 
of the committee has the words ``None of the foregoing funds may be 
transferred to the Department of Justice for the purposes of supporting 
tobacco litigation.'' So without changing the bill, that rider would 
prevent transferring the funds from VA to the Department of Justice to 
pursue the lawsuit.
  Now, the Department of Justice insists that if it cannot get the 
funds transferred from the VA and DOD and the HHS and other affected 
agencies they will not be able to pursue this litigation, because we 
did not fund the Justice Department litigation itself. If we would have 
put money in the budget for the Justice Department litigation against 
the tobacco industry, they would not have to seek funds from the 
Veterans Administration.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. EDWARDS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I just wanted to make sure everybody was clear. The language that we 
are talking about, is it not in the medical care title of the bill, and 
all funds foregoing to that amendment are medical care funds?
  Mr. WAXMAN. If the gentleman will yield further, Mr. Chairman, the 
section we are talking about is the veterans' health care section. In 
the veterans' health care section, there are funds for litigation 
expenses and administrative expenses.
  Our amendment to the rider says that they didn't transfer funds 
except from the administrative and litigation part of the VA health 
care funds. If we sought to transfer funds from somewhere else in the 
Veterans Administration, it is our understanding there would have to be 
a reprogramming of funds, which means legislation to allow that 
reprogramming of funds.
  If I had offered an amendment to say that somewhere else in the funds 
from the Department of Veterans Affairs funds could be transferred, as 
I understand it, a point of order would be permitted against that. So 
we sought to transfer funds from the veterans' health care.
  Another reason why we did that is the veterans' health care program 
is the area that will benefit from the litigation against the tobacco 
industry, which is the reason why the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the 
Disabled American Veterans, the Paralyzed American Veterans, all are 
supporting this amendment, because they want the litigation to 
continue.
  The American Legion has indicated they want the litigation to 
continue as well. The only way it will continue is if we can get funds 
transferred from the affected agencies.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, the 
funds are in the medical care portion of the bill. If the gentleman had 
offered general operating funds or construction funds or any other 
funds, we would not have had this argument today.
  I would just remind the gentleman that every one of those veterans' 
organizations that supported the suit, and they support the suit, I am 
not making that an issue, but what they are saying is, do not use our 
medical care money. Support the suit, but do not take it out of medical 
care.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. EDWARDS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, it is very clear here, we are being given 
a choice whether we are going to stand up for our veterans and make 
sure they get the health guarantees and to protect them, that is why we 
are here, or whether we are going to cave in to the tobacco interests. 
That is what it appears is the easy choice here.
  Mr. EDWARDS. I think the gentleman makes a good point.
  I would like to just add to this debate and discussion, if the 
amendment of the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) was not 
necessary to help the Justice Department pursue litigation against the 
tobacco companies, I am curious to know why the tobacco companies are 
opposed to the amendment offered by the gentleman from California.
  I have a hard time believing that the tobacco companies, through the 
production of their product, which has cost the VA and veterans 
billions of dollars in this country, not to speak of millions of lost 
lives, I have a hard time believing that they are getting involved in 
this debate because they are trying to help the veterans of America.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to just point out a fact. The fact is that 
each year when 400,000 Americans die because of tobacco-related 
diseases, that is four times as many people, Americans, as were killed 
in both the Korean and Vietnam wars combined.

                              {time}  2000

  It seems to me that, when we start the day with our hand over our 
heart and say the pledge of allegiance to the flag in this room, one 
thing we ought to agree on when we say liberty and justice for all is 
that justice ought to apply to everyone in America.
  All we are saying is the Justice Department ought to be adequately 
funded to take this lawsuit to the courts of this land.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Frelinghuysen).
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for 
yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I discussed privately with the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Waxman), and let me reemphasize what the gentleman from 
New York (Chairman Walsh) has had. If the gentleman from California had 
taken it from some other section other than the medical care account, 
certainly I think the large majority of us would be 100 percent behind 
him.
  Many who support the Waxman amendment claim that this language or 
rider in the VA-HUD bill would stop the lawsuit from going forward. 
None of us have any problem with the lawsuit going forward. Some may, 
but certainly not yours truly. There is no language in the VA-HUD bill 
that prevents the Justice Department's lawsuit against the tobacco 
industry from going forward.
  The language prevents the VA from using the money from the veterans 
medical care account, it does not prevent the VA from taking money from 
another account in this bill, not the medical care account. That is not 
to be used directly to provide medical care to veterans.
  This amendment claims that the bill provides special protections of 
the tobacco industry. It does not. But it does provide special 
protection to veterans, making sure that money intended for their 
medical care is used to pay for doctors' visits, inpatient treatment 
for veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder, fulfilling of 
prescriptions, hepatitis C testing and treatment, and other critical 
health needs.
  Much has been made of letters from veterans organizations before this 
body this evening. I am a member of the American Legion. I am a member 
of the VFW. I have a letter here from the American Legion which I would 
like to introduce into the debate since it has been referenced that 
somehow they are supporting the Waxman amendment.
  This is dated June 15. This is from the American Legion, mind you, 
and I quote, ``Taking health care dollars from the VA to pay for 
litigation is counterproductive, especially with the growing demand for 
services by the aging veterans population.'' Continuing under quotation 
marks, ``The American Legion strongly encourages Congress to identify 
$4 million in the projected surplus to be earmarked in the Department 
of Justice's appropriation bill to pay for the VA's share of 
litigation. VA funding should be used for its intended purposes, and 
that is why we oppose the Waxman amendment.''
  I get no support from tobacco. I hate tobacco. Tobacco kills. But we 
do not need to take money away from veterans' medical care to pay for 
this litigation. Within the Department of Justice, it is interesting, 
Mr. Chairman. The Department of Justice has an overall budget of about 
$20 billion. There are 2,374 general authorized attorneys, tax, civil, 
et cetera; 351 antitrust; U.S. attorneys, 4,900; 229 trustees; 7,861 
attorneys in the Department of Justice.

[[Page H4647]]

  There are enough attorneys and there is enough money in the Justice 
Department to fund this lawsuit. They do not need to take it away from 
veterans medical care.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, there are a couple of fallacies, it seems to me, in the 
arguments being made against this amendment. To begin, it should be 
clear that the Justice Department cannot use volunteers. People who 
said, well, they have enough money, Members will recall that the 
Justice Department has been criticized by some, including some on the 
other side of the aisle, for not prosecuting more gun cases.
  The Justice Department is under pressure to do a number of things. 
Tobacco litigation is very expensive. Tobacco litigation involves a 
good deal of effort. It is not simply sending a lawyer into court to 
make an argument. In fact, the discovery and the pretrial work is very, 
very significant.
  Now, it turns out, as we know, that funds invested by governments in 
tobacco litigation bring a very good return. We have a good deal of 
useful work being done in the various States right now because the 
States brought tobacco litigation and won it, and we are trying to do 
the same at the Federal level. So the money will be returned in 
multiples to veterans health.
  Now, people said, well, we do not need to take it out of veterans 
health. I would say this, we are going to pass this bill, not with my 
vote, because it miserably underfunds almost everything, and we are 
going to send it to a conference. If in conference the appropriators 
decide that a different account is a better source of this funding, 
they are free to do that. But I think it is very clear, this vote today 
will be taken as kind of a referendum on whether or not there ought to 
be this participation in the lawsuit.
  I stress again, funding it entirely out of the Justice Departments 
account, given the expense of such a lawsuit. Given the other demands 
of the Justice Department it is not going to fully fund both this 
lawsuit and the other law enforcement priorities we have and which 
people have urged the Justice Department to take on.
  Now, let us be clear what we are dealing with here. If I listened, if 
I hear correctly, some of my friends on the other side are saying, 
well, we are funding this lawsuit, but we do not want to take it out of 
veterans health. This is the constant refrain we heard last week and we 
will hear for the rest of this month dealing with the appropriations 
bills.
  We should be clear where the problem started. It started with a 
foolish budget, a budget that Members on the other side voted for, 
knowing it was inadequate. It is a good thing we do not vote under oath 
around here or some of my friends would have had some problems, because 
they voted for a budget that they knew substantially underfunded a 
whole range of government activities.
  Now, every time an appropriations bill comes up, we are in this game, 
we had it last week, Indian health versus the arts, now it is veterans' 
health versus a lawsuit that is going to bring more money for veterans 
health. It is constant.
  But we should be very clear before we sympathize with those who 
lament this terrible choice that this is an entirely self-inflicted 
wound. People who voted for a budget that they knew to be inadequate 
have really no right to come before us and say, gee, you are making us 
make terrible choices.
  Revenues are increasing. There are important needs in this society 
that must be met together. Much of what we want we can do individually. 
Much of what we need to satisfy the quality of life we want comes from 
individual spending. But some things can only be done jointly through 
government.
  What we have is a budget that substantially underfunds these 
necessary elements, including the lawsuit. Lawsuits are not free. 
Discovery is not free. The tobacco industry will put up a very good 
fight with very high-priced lawyers in this regard. We need to have an 
adequately funded public advocacy group to go on the other side. That 
is really what we are talking about.
  Now, I would agree, and the appropriators have this power, if we win 
this amendment, the House will have spoken. We want there to be an 
adequately funded lawsuit without it necessarily coming at the expense 
of gun law enforcement or other kinds of enforcement at the Justice 
Department or antitrust for which the need seems to be growing.
  Then it will be up to the appropriators in their conference to 
decide. If they can find a better place to fund this, I do not think 
anyone will object. If they came back from a conference with an 
appropriation and said, well, we are not going to take it from here, we 
are going to take it from there, that will be okay.
  But what I fear will happen is, if the amendment is not accepted, we 
will then have an argument that will say, hey, the House voted not to 
let you do this. The argument will go from a narrow technical 
discussion of this particular account to a more general assault on the 
notion of the lawsuit.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am frustrated by what I am hearing from 
the other side on this debate. The argument is put forward that we do 
not want to use funds in the health care area of the Veterans 
Administration's budget because we do not want to use funds that should 
go for health care.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Frank) has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Waxman, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Frank of 
Massachusetts was allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman continue to yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, now of course nobody wants to use health 
care dollars that will be used for services for a lawsuit. That is why 
we wrote the amendment to say that health care services dollars cannot 
be used for the lawsuit. But there are provisions in that budget for 
litigation and administrative expenses.
  Now, we are told, well, that is still not good enough. If we had 
taken it out of the general operating budget for the Veterans 
Administration, that would have been okay. Well, we hear that now from 
the people in charge of the committee, but no one came forward with 
that idea earlier.
  So what we have is an amendment that will say let us take the money 
out of the administrative and litigation part of the VA health care 
budget and pursue what can be a return of a great deal of money to go 
into veterans health. That is why the veterans groups supports this. 
The Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Disabled American Veterans, the 
Paralyzed American Veterans, the AmVets organization support this.
  They certainly do not want to see any reduction in health care, and 
they would otherwise agree with the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Walsh), chairman of the subcommittee, on that point, but they do not 
agree with him on this amendment.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, let me say, I believe we 
have too little in here for veterans health care. I have to say, 
however, this $4 million, especially as the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Waxman) explains it, is not a threat to veterans health care.
  Now, losing $20 billion so Bill Gates does not pay any estate tax, 
that cuts into veterans health care. Lavishing money on wealthy people 
in tax cuts elsewhere cuts into veterans health care. A military 
appropriation that goes way beyond what is reasonably necessary, that 
gets into veterans health care.
  What we have here, and everybody understands this, they will go to 
the conference, and they can come out and account for this however they 
want. What we have here is legislation which has a stricture against 
using money to contribute to the Justice Department so we can have an 
adequately funded lawsuit.
  If this amendment is defeated and if this bill passes with 
antitobacco lawsuit language in it, we all know that it will be 
interpreted by many in the leadership of the Republican Party working 
with the tobacco industry on this particular point to say no lawsuit at 
all. It will be part of a campaign to get the lawsuit dropped 
altogether.
  So I will defer to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh). He has 
done a

[[Page H4648]]

good job about the sow's ear he was given. He did not even get the 
whole ear. He got the sow's earlobe. I do not expect him to be able to 
give us much soap with a sow's earlobe, but that was that foolish 
budget that he was stuck with and an inadequate quality allocation.
  So I have confidence on this point, I believe if we pass this 
amendment and the House says yes, we want there to be a contribution so 
we get a very adequately funded lawsuit so we can go up against the 
best lawyers in the company that the tobacco industry will have, I will 
be confident that they will be able in this budget to find money.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Frank) has again expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts was allowed to 
proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, we know finally that this 
is not the real budget. This is the fake budget. Everybody knows that 
this budget is too low. But we have people who do not like to admit 
that they were wrong. They do not like to admit they were wrong in 1997 
with that Balanced Budget Act with those silly caps. They do not like 
to admit that they voted for an inadequate budget out of party loyalty 
earlier.
  So this budget will go out of here inadequately funded. It will go to 
the other body. It will go into negotiations with the President. Low 
and behold, it will get bigger.
  So we should not fight too much about which inadequacies we deal with 
here. Let us make a statement in principle that we are in favor of the 
tobacco lawsuit; and when this bill goes to other places which are a 
little less addicted to unreality, and adequate funding magically 
appears, then we will be able fully to fund the contributions to the 
lawsuit and I hope to do even better for veterans health than we have 
done in this budget.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, we all know that the story of the propagation of 
tobacco use in our country by the tobacco companies is a sad and sorry 
one. We all witnessed the spectacle of executives of the major tobacco 
companies coming before committees of this Congress and claiming that 
tobacco was not addictive and that, furthermore, they did nothing to 
make it addictive.
  We now know, of course, that is all untrue. They knew from the very 
beginning that tobacco was addictive, and they were manipulating their 
product to make it as addictive as possible.
  At the same time, they were engaging in a number of activities which 
were designed to propagate the use of tobacco among young people and as 
young as possible so that this habit could be ingrained in them 
throughout their lives, which inevitably would be made and have been 
made much shorter as a result of the tobacco product.
  One of the ways in which the tobacco companies propagated the use of 
their product was to give free cigarettes to service people. I was in 
the service myself. I saw that happen. As a result of that, a lot of 
young men and women, too, became addicted to tobacco products as a 
result of the availability of these products, and even the free 
availability of these products from the tobacco companies.

                              {time}  2015

  It is only fair and reasonable that this government have the 
opportunity to recover health care costs that have been incurred by the 
Veterans Administration tending to veterans who have had their lives 
shortened and have been made extremely ill during those lives as a 
result of the use of these tobacco products, particularly and 
especially cigarettes.
  That is what we are trying to do here. We are trying to provide $4 
million so that the Justice Department of the United States can engage 
in legal action to recover some of the costs associated with the health 
care costs from addictive tobacco use in veterans. Those costs amount 
to about $1 billion a year, each and every year. It is only fair and 
reasonable that we try to recover those costs. That is what this 
amendment would do.
  Now, we all know, too, that this budget is deficient, not as a result 
of any deficiencies with the chairman but as a result of the low number 
set by the leadership. I think the chairman has done a very good job 
within the construct and the constraints within which he has had to 
operate. But that does not solve the problem at hand.
  The problem at hand is a very serious one, and we have the means to 
solve it simply by allowing a very small amount of money in the 
construct of this particular budget, and certainly the overall budget, 
a mere $4 million to be made available to the Justice Department so 
that they might pursue appropriate litigation to recover perhaps as 
much as $1 billion a year, year after year after year, to tend to the 
health care needs of American veterans whose lives have been direly, 
sorely affected and, in many cases, have been and will continue to be 
made much shorter as a result of the addiction to tobacco products, 
particularly cigarettes, induced knowingly, willingly, and 
intentionally by the tobacco companies.
  Now, why would we not do that? I simply do not understand why this 
Congress would not provide that small amount of money to pursue a 
rightful legal action in order to recover funds which are appropriately 
recoverable to take care of a very obvious need, a need which can be 
addressed by the use of these funds if this litigation is allowed to go 
forward. We know the litigation is likely to be successful. How do we 
know that? Because we have seen litigation similarly pursued by the 
several States, and in each and every case the States have been 
successful, as have recently individuals been successful in bringing 
legal actions against the tobacco companies for the illnesses caused by 
the use of tobacco, induced by these same tobacco companies.
  So this is something that we ought to do. It is a reasonable, 
sensible and moderate proposal which will bring forth huge benefits to 
the taxpayers of our country; but most immediately and most importantly 
it will bring forth huge benefits in additional health care to the 
veterans in veterans hospitals across America. Let us pass this 
amendment.
  Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words; and as I see the Chair performing once again so admirably well 
in a somewhat difficult debate here this evening, I am reminded of how 
much we will miss him after he is gone at the conclusion of this term.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just say a few words, first of all, as someone 
who is on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and as a family doctor who 
trained in two different veterans hospitals, one in Oregon and one in 
Arkansas, first as a medical student and then as a medical resident, 
that I can assure my colleagues my vote tonight for the Waxman 
amendment will not be a vote to take away dollars from the veterans' 
health care.
  I have looked at the language for this. Federal facilities, such as 
the veterans' health care system, veterans hospitals, have legal 
expense funds and they have administrative funds. The Waxman amendment 
very clearly states that these dollars would come from the legal and 
administrative expenses of the Department of Veterans Affairs for 
collecting and recovering amounts owed the United States. There is 
nothing in there about taking dollars away from x-rays for lung cancer, 
there is nothing in there about taking away dollars for coronary artery 
bypass graft surgery, there is nothing in there about taking dollars 
away from any other kind of health care screening or treatment or 
disability.
  We are talking about having a legal fund that is part of the 
veterans' health care system and just countering the language in the 
majority's bill that these legal funds cannot be used for this lawsuit 
and just saying, yes, they can be used for this lawsuit. The monies for 
administrative and legal expenses can be used for this lawsuit.
  About a week ago I went to a fund-raiser for an organization in my 
town that is actually housed in one of our VA facilities. They lease 
some space for it for a really fine hospice program. And I just 
happened to be sitting next to a woman who, as it turned out, we had a 
mutual friend. Her new daughter-in-law used to work for me. And we 
began talking, and she told me how her 34-year-old daughter had died 2 
years before from lung cancer, a remarkably young age. But, of course, 
like so many of us American kids that start smoking

[[Page H4649]]

when they are 14, 15, or 16, that can be a 20-year history of smoking a 
pack a day. And it really brought home the ominous nature of what we 
are talking about here and the dramatic effect this can have on 
people's lives.
  Like the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske), who spoke earlier, 
multiple times, as a medical student and as a resident, I have either 
dealt with folks in the end stage of some tobacco-related illness or 
had to be the one to tell them that they had a lung cancer or that 
their health had deteriorated because of their tobacco use.
  So this is a big deal in the veterans' health care system. Frankly, I 
do not understand why the majority is drawing a line in the sand over 
the Waxman amendment when it so clearly states these funds would only 
come from administrative and legal expenses, not from health care. And, 
frankly, I am starting to resent the implication that by voting for the 
Waxman amendment that somehow I, as a family doctor, am voting to take 
away health care dollars from the VA. That is not what this amendment 
is about, and that is certainly not what the American people want or 
expect us to do. They expect us to find dollars to provide for our 
veterans' health care.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SNYDER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I 
hear from the other side the argument that they would like to have it 
come from the Department of Veterans Affairs but not from this 
particular section. And the reason I did not offer it in any other way 
is because of the possibility of a point of order.
  But if we are willing to have this worked out, I could, by unanimous 
consent, if everyone would agree, to change the amendment to say, on 
page 9 line 3, after the word insert the following, the Department of 
Veterans Affairs may transfer funds from the general operating expenses 
of the Department for the purposes of supporting the tobacco 
litigation.
  Let me put that forward and see if that resolves the opposition. 
Because I have not heard people on the other side say they do not want 
to fund the litigation, although we think that they would pull the plug 
on the litigation if they have that rider that has come out of the 
Committee on Appropriations. But if this is a more acceptable route, 
maybe we could do that, as long as we are funding the litigation.
  So we would say, in effect, the Department of Veterans Affairs may 
transfer funds from the general operating expenses of the Department 
for the purposes of supporting the tobacco litigation.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SNYDER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, responding to the gentleman from California, 
first of all, we have had about 3\1/2\ hours of debate now on this 
amendment, and if the gentleman would like to change the amendment, we 
would be glad to take a look at the language; and if the language is in 
order, then we would take it at the proper point in the bill. But I 
would remind the gentleman that we only preclude the use of funds in 
the medical care portion.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder) 
has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Waxman, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Snyder was 
allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, as 
we tried to explain, and if the gentleman had presented his amendment 
to us at the beginning of this, before we began to debate, we would 
have been able to maybe work through this a little easier.
  Let me read the language in the bill. It says, ``None of the 
foregoing funds,'' meaning the funds within the medical care portion of 
the bill. And I would restate that, ``None of the foregoing funds,'' 
meaning the medical care portion of the bill, ``may be transferred to 
the Department of Justice for the purposes of supporting tobacco 
litigation.''
  So the only funds that the gentleman cannot get at in this bill are 
in the medical care portion of the bill, that the Justice Department 
cannot get at, are in the medical care portion of the bill. So I do not 
believe there is any need for any additional language.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
did not quite hear the last point the gentleman made. The gentleman is 
saying we do not need another amendment if we accept the idea that it 
is coming out of the Veterans Administration?
  Mr. WALSH. If the Veterans Administration decides that they want to 
use funds to provide to the Justice Department's lawyers, they would 
have to come back to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) 
and I for reprogramming.
  Mr. WAXMAN. If the gentleman would yield further, it seems to me, if 
that is the point of the gentleman, there should not be any problem 
with having a unanimous consent understanding right here and now to put 
this in the bill.
  If the gentleman is saying we do not need it, I disagree with the 
gentleman. Because as I understand it, the Veterans Administration 
would then have to reprogram funds, and that would require legislation. 
But if the gentleman would permit, I will make a unanimous consent.
  Mr. WALSH. It does not require additional legislation.


      Request For Modification To Amendment Offered By Mr. Waxman

  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, if we have no disagreement on the issue, 
then I would ask unanimous consent that the amendment be modified to 
provide that the Department of Veterans Affairs may transfer funds from 
the general operating expenses of the Department for the purposes of 
supporting the tobacco litigation.
  Mr. WALSH. I object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman continue to yield?
  Mr. SNYDER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for continuing to 
yield to me, just to say one last thing, and that is that we tried to 
meet the objection that has been raised on the other side and we have 
been unable to do that. We need this amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SNYDER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Let me 
simply point out that the point the gentleman from California has made 
is a crucial point.
  The issue goes to reprogramming, because what this committee has 
tried to do in bill after bill is to prevent the administration, first 
of all, from directly spending. In one subcommittee they refused to 
appropriate any money for the suit. And then they required them to come 
back for reprogramming from at least two subcommittees from which it is 
known they will never get approval for that reprogramming request.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder) 
has again expired.
  (On request of Mr. Obey, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Snyder was 
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, what 
this really is, when we couple the refusal to appropriate the dollars 
in one subcommittee with the limitation on transfers from other 
agencies with the requirement for reprogramming, we have a three-
pronged attack that winds up enabling people to pretend that they have 
not blocked the tobacco suit when in fact they have.
  It is a way for the Congress to cover itself and pretend that it is 
not stopping the suit against the tobacco companies when in practical 
terms the way this institution operates we know that it is shutting 
down and closing every door available to the Justice Department to 
pursue that suit.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder) 
has once again expired.
  (On request of Mr. Waxman, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Snyder was 
allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SNYDER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, we are getting close, I think, to the end 
of this debate, and I just want to summarize where we are.

[[Page H4650]]

  We argued that we should not preclude the transfer of funds so that 
the litigation could go forward. The chairman of the subcommittee said 
he wants the litigation to go forward; he just does not want the funds 
out of this account. We took that to heart and drafted our amendment so 
it would not come out of the part of the account that goes to health 
care services. We tried to get an agreement that it comes out of other 
parts of the Department of Veterans Affairs, but the ranking member of 
the Committee on Appropriations has told us why that will not work.
  So where we are is with this amendment, and this amendment would take 
the funds out of the litigation and administrative expense part of the 
Veterans Affairs health program, and allow the use of it to pay for 
litigation expenses for the tobacco companies. We think that will 
produce a great deal of money for the Veterans Administration's health 
care program.
  Not only do we think that, but the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the 
Paralyzed Veterans of America, the Disabled American Veterans, and 
AMVETS agree with us. That is why they are supporting our amendment.

                              {time}  2030

  I urge Members to support our amendment. If it is defeated, the rider 
will stand in this appropriations bill and the litigation may well be 
stopped in its tracks. So I hope that Members understand where we are 
and, if they do believe this litigation ought to go forward, that they 
will vote for Waxman, Evans, and others who have joined with us in this 
amendment.
  Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Chairman, this is not about taking monies from 
veterans' health care, but it is about using veterans' health care 
legal expenses for litigation. That is what the Waxman amendment does. 
It has nothing to do with decreasing health care for veterans.
  Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to 
this amendment.
  Funds appropriated in this legislation are intended to provide for 
the veterans who have served our nation so well. The funds in this 
legislation are intended for housing assistance for Americans in need. 
There are funds here for environmental protection and our space 
program. What this legislation is not intended to do is pay for 
politically motivated lawsuits for the Justice Department.
  The Justice Department is not prohibited from using its civil funds 
to pay for this lawsuit. It is not prohibited from asking Chairman 
Rogers' subcommittee to allow for reprogramming of its funds. However, 
this Congress needs to send a clear message to the Justice Department 
that it IS prohibited from using veterans' health care money for this 
lawsuit, and that it is required to live with the appropriations 
Congress approves.
  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 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 Congress and 
take money from veterans programs to try to get it.
  The Justice Department needs to stop stealing veteran's 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 
1960's. The Surgeon General's 1964 report details the risks of tobacco 
use. The American people are not as stupid 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 responsibility for 
those choices.
  No federal law gives the government authority to collect Medicare 
funds as proposed in this lawsuit. Three 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 this civil lawsuit, ended its five-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 
the federal government to recover. It is already making money off of 
tobacco use, and this Administration only wants more.
  The absurdity of this legislating 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 our role in appropriating how tax dollars are spent. This 
Justice Department must follow Congressional intent. If it wants to 
fund this suit, it should do so with its funds, not the veterans'. 
Please vote no on this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 197, 
noes 207, not voting 30 as follows:

                             [Roll No. 293]

                               AYES--197

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Filner
     Foley
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Ney
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Roukema
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schakowsky
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--207

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehrlich
     English
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Fletcher
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson

[[Page H4651]]


     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sanchez
     Sanford
     Schaffer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--30

     Bilbray
     Brown (FL)
     Campbell
     Cannon
     Coburn
     Cook
     Dunn
     Emerson
     Engel
     Ewing
     Fattah
     Fowler
     Gephardt
     Hayes
     Hooley
     Largent
     Martinez
     McCollum
     McIntosh
     Millender-McDonald
     Moran (VA)
     Oberstar
     Owens
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Shuster
     Vento
     Weiner

                              {time}  2050

  Mr. HILLIARD changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. KILPATRICK and Messrs. SMITH of New Jersey, HALL of Ohio, EHLERS 
and GILCHREST changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 293, I was 
unavoidably detained and was unable to make this vote. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``aye.''
  Stated against:
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 293, I was inadvertently 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Ose) having assumed the chair, Mr. Pease, Chairman of the Committee of 
the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that 
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4635) making 
appropriations for the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and 
Urban Development, and for sundry independent agencies, boards, 
commissions, corporations, and offices for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2001, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution 
thereon.

                          ____________________