Hal Rogers: “contrary to what we have heard, this amendment and this debate is not about whether one likes or believes in smoking, or…”

“contrary to what we have heard, this amendment and this debate is not about whether one likes or believes in smoking, or whether it is good or bad for us. That is not the issue here. The issue is not whether this lawsuit has merits or not. That is what we have heard here, arguing the merits or demerits of the lawsuit. It has nothing to do with that. The question here is whether or not the Justice Department violated the law itself in filing the lawsuit. Last year, for the first time that I have ever recalled, Justice asked the Congress for money to file a specific lawsuit. The Congress said no; the money was denied. Justice then secretly went to three agencies and said, give us the money to file this lawsuit. They said, wait a minute, where is your authority for that? They said, well, look at section 109 of the 1995 State Commerce-Justice bill where it says that agencies can reimburse the Justice Department for representing them in court, and they dragged the money out of those agencies and filed this lawsuit. Well, that statute that they are talking about is the crux of what we are talking about here today. That statute merely says that the Government can be represented in court when it is sued. That was the intent of the Congress; no to be the suer. No one told the Congress that they had done this. We had to find it out on our own, and we did.”