337 



in rats; nor does it protect attorneys who falsely deny the health hazards of smoking 

 to Congress. 



We need to be asking ourselves, are the attorneys employed by tobacco companies 

 functioning as counsel or as tobacco company executives? Does attorney-client privi- 

 lege apply to decisions made by CTR or tobacco company attorneys to fund or not 

 to fund a project or to withhold study results? 



I hope that we are able to learn more about the practices of CTR today, and I 

 look forward to future inquiries as to the approaches used by tobacco industry attor- 

 neys in shielding their clients' conduct from public scrutiny over the past 30 years. 



Mr. Waxman. Thank you, Mr. Synar. 



Mr. McMillan. 



Mr. McMillan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



First, I would like to thank Dr. James Glenn — I don't think any- 

 one has thanked you yet — for joining us today to discuss the issues 

 related to studies funded by the Center for Tobacco Research. It is 

 my understanding that the center engaged in funding of specific 

 disease-related research and the understanding of it for over 40 

 years. 



Before we get to those matters, I have a few questions which 

 should be asked at the beginning of this hearing. 



We have spent a great deal of time on the issue of tobacco and 

 more than a few people, myself included, are interested in finding 

 out what it is we hope to accomplish other than satisfying an ad- 

 diction to public attention. I was present when we recently voted 

 legislation out of this subcommittee that restricts smoking in public 

 places. Although it took several informational hearings and three 

 markup attempts before we were successful, that legislation is now 

 in the hands of the full committee. 



Since that legislation has moved, why are we continuing to hold 

 hearings on tobacco? Does the chairman propose to address specific 

 legislation and, if so, what is it? 



Mr. Chairman, if you would grant us the courtesy, it would be 

 nice to evaluate the information which we obtain in the light of 

 some specific proposal. As yet, you have identified no specific legis- 

 lative goal which these hearings are intended to further. As al- 

 ways, I would be interested to consider your legislation on its mer- 

 its and on its impact on people instead of repeatedly beating the 

 tobacco industry into the ground without apparent legislative pur- 

 pose. The members of the subcommittee obviously feel they know 

 enough about the issue generally, otherwise you might have a 

 greater attendance record. Perhaps if you offered a legislative pro- 

 posal which we could focus upon you would get as many members 

 here as we do TV cameras from time to time. 



Mr. Chairman, if we have legislation, let's consider it. If not, let's 

 quit perpetuating classic government — spinning wheels, accom- 

 plishing nothing, wasting the time and money of everyone except 

 for lobbyists, lawyers and public relations experts. 



There are other issues such as the reauthorization of the Safe 

 Drinking Water Act, or health care reform which we could and 

 should be working on in this subcommittee. As a matter of fact, I 

 am going to leave in 2 minutes to go do just that with respect to 

 trying to shape a health care reform proposal that the Energy and 

 Commerce Committee might find a majority to support. 



I would like to conclude with one final query. I received just a 

 few minutes ago a thick sheaf of documents that is labeled "the 



