hone in and see if there are things that need to be done to address those questions and let's move on with the legislation instead of engaging in an ongoing PR extravaganza.

I thank the chairman.

Mr. WAXMAN. The theme of this hearing is to get out the truth. That is why this hearing is being held and why we have witnesses before us to respond to questions that they have been unwilling to respond to in any other place, whether it has been from members of the press or from anyone else who is seeking to get that information which I think the public ought to have.

Mr. Wyden.

Mr. WYDEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

First, let me say to the gentleman from North Carolina that we are here for one reason, and that is to save lives and help improve the health of the American people. The gentleman says that lawyers on this committee are all getting together to make judgments. What we are doing is following up on the recommendations of virtually every objective medical group in our country. We are not lawyers conducting medical inquiries. We are Members of Congress elected by our constituents to work on health care issues, and it seems to me when the Surgeon General, the American Medical Association and the World Health Association all say that we need these measures to improve the public health, we have an obligation as elected officials to follow up on what these health groups are saying.

Personally, I think it is high time that this committee investigates the pseudoscience that has been purveyed for years by the Council on Tobacco Research.

As we go to our witness, I would like to read what the Wall Street Journal had to say on this matter. They said, and I quote: "For almost 4 decades the Council for Tobacco Research in New York City has been the hub of a massive effort to cast doubt on the links between smoking and disease. Sponsored by U.S. tobacco companies and long run behind the scenes by tobacco industry lawyers, the ostensibly independent council has spent millions of dollars advancing sympathetic science. At the same time it has sometimes disregarded or even cut off studies of its own that implicated smoking as a health hazard."

Then they quote an employee named Dorothea Cohen, who worked there for 24 years saying and I quote: "When the Center for Tobacco Researchers found out that cigarettes were bad and it was better not to smoke, we didn't publicize that in press releases." She goes on to say, "The Council for Tobacco Research is just a lobbying thing. We were lobbying for cigarettes."

So I for one think it is high time we find out exactly what this organization does. It seems to me when the Wall Street Journal— not exactly an organ of antibusiness opinion-talks about the activities of this organization in the fashion I have described, it is our obligation as public officials to pursue it.

I yield back my

Mr. WAXMAN. Rather than yield back your time, would you yield to me?

Mr. WYDEN. I would be happy to.

Mr. WAXMAN. You made reference to a seminal article in the Wall Street Journal about how cigarette makers keep health questions open year after year. The Council for Tobacco Research was the subject of that article.

This article cited the Council for Tobacco Research as refusing to answer any questions. They refused to answer questions for the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, any of the representatives of the press in this country that gives out information to the public. Well, I think they should be called before the Congress of the United States to give out the information that I think is appropriate for us to know about their activities and their presumed scientific inquiries-whether it is genuine science or public relations science, whether they are engaged in what they say they are supposed to do, which is to pursue the truth, or whether they are trying to lay a veil of secrecy over that truth.

I do want to point that out. The press can't insist on these answers but the Congress of the United States will insist on answers to these important questions.

Mr. Greenwood.

Mr. GREENWOOD. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WAXMAN. We will leave the record open for other members of the subcommittee who wish to insert statements in the record. Mr. WAXMAN. Our witness this morning is Dr. James Glenn, chairman and CEO and president of the Council for Tobacco Research.

Dr. Glenn, as is our custom in tobacco control hearings, we would like to swear in all witnesses. I want to tell you that at the desk next to you are the applicable Rules of the House, and the Rules of the Committee. They will inform you of the limits on the power of this subcommittee and the extent of your rights during your appearance today.

Do you or those who will accompany you desire to be represented by counsel or advised by counsel during your appearance here today?

Mr. GLENN. Perhaps so, Mr. Waxman.

Mr. WAXMAN. Well, you are entitled to be represented by counsel. I want to inform you of that fact.

Do you or those who you have asked to accompany you object to appearing before this subcommittee under oath.

Mr. GLENN. No, sir.

Mr. WAXMAN. If you have no objection, I would like to ask you to rise and raise your right hand.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. WAXMAN. Please consider yourself to be under oath and identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.

TESTIMONY OF JAMES F. GLENN, CHAIRMAN, COUNCIL FOR TOBACCO RESEARCH, USA

Mr. GLENN. I am Dr. James F. Glenn. I am a surgeon. I am chairman, president and chief executive officer of the Council for Tobacco Research, USA.

I am pleased to be here and happy to cooperate with this committee in their investigations. I am even more pleased to be able

to bring to public record the facts and the truth about the activities of the Council for Tobacco Research.

By way of personal introduction, I am a native of Kentucky. I had my undergraduate education at the University of Rochester. I received my medical degree from Duke University. I have postgraduate training in general surgery at Harvard in the Peter Bent Brigham Hospital. I subsequently had neurologic training at Duke University after completing a tour as a flight surgeon during the Korean War.

I served on the faculty at Yale University, Bowman Gray University, and for 18 years I was chairman of the Urology Department at Duke University Medical Center. I then served as dean of the medical school at Emory University in Atlanta and then as president of Mount Sinai Medical Center, Mount Sinai Hospital and Mount Sinai Medical School in New York.

For the past 7 years, I have been associated with the Council for Tobacco Research, also serving simultaneously on the faculty of the University of Kentucky, first in the capacity of director of the Lucille P. Markey Cancer Center at that institution, and currently as chief of staff of the University Hospital and dean for Clinical Affairs.

My curriculum vitae and bibliography are available to you and I will be happy to answer any questions about that, but I thought I would not belabor that.

I am, of course, certified by the American Board of Urology. I am a member of some 35 professional organizations. I am currently president of the International Society of Urology, and I have served as president of the Southeastern Section of Urology, the American Association of Genitourinary Surgeons, president of the Clinical Society of Genito-Urinary Surgeons, president of the Society for Pediatric Urology, president of the Society of Pelvic Surgeons, and other associations.

I have authored one of the best selling textbooks in urology and I have some 270 publications in my bibliography, which is before

you.

I joined the Council for Tobacco Research in 1987 at their invitation first as a member of the Scientific Advisory Board then as their assistant scientific director, subsequently as scientific director, and I am currently chairman, president, and CEO of the organization.

There has been recently a great deal of negative press about the Council for Tobacco Research. We have been accused of being a public relations ploy for the tobacco industry. We have not responded to many of these inaccuracies in the press because we didn't want to appear as a public relations arm.

It has been said that we have concealed research from the public and provided misinformation about tobacco use and disease. Quite the contrary.

Indeed, I reject both of those implications. As this hearing progresses, I hope to demonstrate to you that the activities of the CTR have been open and aboveboard at every turn.

The Scientific Advisory Board does not consider whether research results will be favorable or unfavorable to the tobacco industry. We are scientists and we seek scientific truth.

We encourage independent investigators to publish their results in reputable journals, preferably peer-reviewed. The industry exercises no control over our activities, over the granting of funds for basic research, or the sort of research that will be pursued.

The Council has never diverted any research into special programs or special projects for the purpose of suppressing research. Those who have worked with the Council over the years, as I have, recognize these allegations to be untrue. Let me try to give you some facts to replace these erroneous speculations.

The Council is a private, nonprofit organization that sponsors research into questions of tobacco use and health. It was founded in 1954 as the Tobacco Industry Research Committee, later changing its name to the current one.

It has been funded primarily by the five major tobacco manufacturers over the years. The awards are approximately $20 million per year at the present time, making the Council for, CTR one of the largest private granting agencies in the Nation. We have awarded over $220 million over the years, funding some 1,380 projects by about 1,000 biomedical investigators. All this research has been performed by independent scientists.

The Council for Tobacco Research does not accomplish research on its own. We have no research facilities. We are simply a funding agency for independently accomplished private research.

The funded research has been done at preeminent medical institutions throughout this country and abroad. We have grants at Harvard university, Johns Hopkins, Duke University, the University of Texas, the Mayo Clinic, Scripps Research Institute, the National Institutes of Health, and several Veteran's Administration hospital facilities.

A large number, perhaps the overwhelming majority of the research projects that we have funded, have been co-funded by other distinguished granting agencies including the National Institutes of Health, and its National Cancer Institute, also by the Environmental Protection Agency, the American Cancer Society, the American Lung Association, and the American Heart Association.

I am sure if you have perused the 30 copies of the annual reports that we have provided for you you will see the nature of the research and also the credits of those efforts both to the CTR and simultaneously to other agencies.

The funding is provided for research in certain key biomedical areas. Cancer leads the list. Over half of our grants at the present time are devoted to some aspect of malignant disease. Cardiovascular diseases have played an important role. We are supporting research in cellular and molecular biology and developmental biology.

Epidemiology has been an interest, though fading, because epidemiologic studies are not at the cutting edge of science any longer. We are progressively funding research into areas of genetics, immunology, the neurosciences, and I might mention that currently we are sponsoring a conference here in Washington, DC., which is under the auspices of the New York Academy of Sciences and it deals with the functional diversity of interacting receptors. This conference is a special conference of the New York Academy.

Our sponsors were willing to add additional funds to our research fund in order to sponsor this conference. It is now in its second day here in this city. It is comprised of some of the most distinguished neuroscientists in the world.

Our focus has been on basic research. In recent years all medical research has focused on the macroscopic to the microscopic. We are now down to the cellular and molecular level as the basis for disease. Until we understand the mechanisms that can induce cell regulation and deregulation, we cannot answer the fundamental question of what causes cancer, for example.

We believe that we are providing the best opportunity for understanding the processes and mechanisms of disease, specifically those that are statistically associated with smoking. This program is consistent with that of other granting agencies such as the NIH, American Heart Association, American Cancer Society.

Our grantees who are a broad spectrum of basic biomedical scientists for the most part are assured complete scientific freedom in conducting these studies. The grantees alone are responsible for publishing their results. We do not publish papers. We do publish an annual report with abstracts of all of the papers published by our grantees. This is done as a summary and a service to the biomedical community, and you have that information available to you.

The grantees in general are encouraged to publish in peer-reviewed journals and publication is encouraged in every instance. We have never suppressed publication of any articles.

There are more than 5,000 basic biomedical contributions in the literature reporting results of CTR sponsored research. They are in the most respected journals, and I will be glad to list those for you, if you so desire.

Now, how does the CTR function? The CTR functions very much like a study contribution of the NIH, and I speak from personal experience in telling you this.

We have a Scientific Advisory Board of 15 very distinguished biomedical scientists from all over this country and Canada. Applicants are encouraged to submit to us a preliminary inquiry trying to determine whether we would have an interest in supporting their research efforts.

These preliminary inquires are reviewed by members of the Scientific Advisory Board. În general, about 50 percent of the preliminary inquires are encouraged to be resubmitted as full grant applications.

When the full grant application is submitted, the Scientific Advisory Board members review these. All members of the Scientific Advisory Board review all grants and two or more of the Scientific Advisory Board are asked to submit written reports regarding these grants. Then twice yearly the Scientific Advisory Board gathers for a day session during which they rank and score these grant applications.

Clearly, we are not able to support all of the good research that is submitted to us, but we do fund grants to the extent of 12 percent of the submissions. This is approximately the same as the funding level at the National Institutes of Health at the present time.