Henry Waxman

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.

Mr. WAXMAN. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I wish to inquire of the subcommittee chairman the time limits he indicated, are those for debates for this evening on those amendments?

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my demand for a recorded vote.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I have no objection to rolling over votes while we are all here listening to the debate, but if we are going to vote and then have debate while all of the Members are gone and then vote tomorrow, I find that a highly offensive procedure. There will be no one to hear the debate on either side. So if the proposal is to have our votes and have the debate on that one amendment only and roll it over to have the vote thereafter or roll it over until tomorrow and not have all of the other amendments brought up tonight, I will not object, but I do not think it is proper to have a lot of amendments debated when members are not even here to hear the debate.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. WAXMAN. This is about the anecdote he is relating to the House.

Mr. WAXMAN. If the gentleman will continue to yield, perhaps they were enforcing the law. I think the gentleman is overreacting to something that is not accurate.

Mr. WAXMAN. I did not call the gentleman a liar, but let me tell my colleague, if he would yield to me, I will explain to him my point, and I have heard the story over and over again about the FDA sneaking into offices, and when I investigated it, it just was not true, it just was not accurate.

Mr. WAXMAN. I would.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am just shocked at the debate that we are hearing this evening. The story the gentleman just told, as far as I know, is an anecdote that is not correct. It did not happen. I have heard these stories over and over again, and they turn out, when we investigate them, to be untrue. This is not the basis for ending an agency that protects the safety of the American people by approving drugs to be effective and protecting us from a food supply that may poison us. I think this an irresponsible amendment. If this amendment were to be adopted, it would keep the FDA from getting drugs and devices on the market. Our industry in this country for drugs and devices are the marvel and leader of the world because they work with FDA, and, when FDA approves them, everyone recognizes that the FDA approval means that those products do what they are intended to do. They are safe, they are effective, and our industry has been profitable and saves lives. Let us preserve the FDA and defeat this amendment. I think it is thoroughly irresponsible to want an appropriations bill to do away with the Food and Drug Administration. I wonder what the authorizing committees are all about, what the policy committees are supposed to be doing, if we are going to have amendments dropped out here on the floor without any debate, without any hearings, without any real thought being given to whether the FDA ought to be preserved, in some ways reformed, but made to work as it has done and can continue to do in the future.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, this is the kind of debate that mystifies the American people. The Federal Government and every medical expert in this country has told us that cigarette smoking is the leading cause of preventable death. On tonight's news, we heard that young people are starting to smoke again in large numbers. That is a public health menace. So on the one hand, we are telling people not to smoke, and on the other hand, we are subsidizing the tobacco industry. What kind of signal is this to the American people? What kind of signal is it to our children? How are we going to explain to people that we are going to cut back on school lunches, we are going to cut back on programs for poor people and the elderly, but we are going to continue subsidizing the tobacco farmers? We do not dictate whether a person smokes or not. That is an individual decision. But it ought not to be sudsidized by the American people in any way, shape or form. This amendment is a small step. There are other subsidizations that we have through the tax deductions that the tobacco companies take in order to promote their product, and there is no product for which more money is spent to promote than tobacco itself, something like $3-, $4-, $5-billion a year. They are making an enormous amount of profit from the disease and death of people who are their customers. I believe they are enlisting kids to become smokers to replace those that are dying off. Do not subsidize it with taxpayers' funds. I urge adoption of the Durbin amendment.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] has set out the case extremely well. In all the hearings we have had over the years about the AIDS epidemic, we have come to one clear conclusion. We ought to be honest with the American people, give out the facts that are scientifically based and let people know the information. Now, if someone as an employee is squeamish, as I understand the substitute amendment by the gentleman from Ohio, they need not be participating in these instructions. They ought to make the decision. Government should not be squeamish in giving honest facts to the people.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, this Republican budget risks the security and effectiveness of the Medicare and Medicaid programs for the millions of Americans who depend upon them. Are my Republican colleagues honest enough to tell us their plan to make these massive cuts in these programs? Of course not--because they do not want the American people to understand what they are doing to Medicare and Medicaid. They do not want people to understand the implications for inner city and rural hospitals, for teaching hospitals and children's hospitals, for our medical research institutions. They do not want them to understand what it means for the quality of care in nursing homes. And most of all, they do not want our seniors to understand what this does to their Social Security checks. What we do know is that these cuts are not driven by a desire to improve the Medicare program. They are driven pure and simple by deficit reduction and tax cut politics. Medicare spending is slashed by $280 billion. Taxes are cut by $245 billion. Would we be slashing Medicare this way if we were not giving so much of this tax cut to the wealthy? Of course not. So at the same time this tax cut is putting money in the pockets of a lot of people who do not need it, the Republican Medicare budget is taking money out of the pockets of a lot of Medicare beneficiaries who are already struggling to make ends meet. Let us remember who the typical Medicare beneficiary is. This mother, father, grandparent--elderly or disabled--lives on a limited income. In fact, more than three-quarters of Medicare beneficiaries have incomes of less than $25,000. Virtually a third have nothing but Social Security for almost all of their income. And the 4\1/2\ million seniors who cannot even afford to pay their Medicare premium without help from Medicaid lose that protection in this Republican budget at the same time their premiums, deductibles, and coinsurance soar. This Republican budget reaches into the pockets of our senior citizens, no matter how modest their income, and ask them to pay more for less. It takes away the assurance of help with nursing home bills that American families depend on when their parents age. It adds millions of poor children to the rolls of the uninsured. That is wrong. That is irresponsible. That is an overwhelming reason to defeat this Republican budget.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the adoption of the conference report on H.R. 483, a bill to permit Medicare select policies to be offered in all States. Let me state that I oppose adoption of this conference report reluctantly. We have underway in a limited number of States, including my own State of California, a demonstration project to study the value and effects of Medicare select policies. I favor letting that demonstration continue. I favor continuing to offer Medicare select policies where they are currently being tested under the demonstration. But I have grave concerns about expanding Medicare select to all States. At the time this bill passed the House I raised these concerns and suggested the prudent course would be to wait and receive the evaluation of the demonstration that was underway. We did not. Now, before the conference was concluded, HCFA provided us with some preliminary information that the evaluation was finding. And that information should give pause to any prudent legislator. They found that Medicare select was significantly associated with cost increases in spending in the Medicare program itself in 8 of the 12 States where select policies were offered. Surely, on a day when the Republicans in this House passed over the nearly unanimous objection of the Democrats a budget which slashes Medicare spending by $270 billion over the next 7 years, it is folly to pass legislation which threatens to increase the cost to the public of Medicare so that more private insurance companies can reap profits on their Medicare select policies. It is only prudent to stop this expansion of Medicare select until we can be sure that they are not adding to expenditures in the Medicare Program. We might also pause and consider the irony of the actions we have taken today. Let's think about why we need MediGap and Medicare select policies in the first place. We need these policies for one simple reason: Medicare requires people to pay a lot of money out-of-pocket when they get sick. Most Medicare beneficiaries are so frightened by the amounts they have to pay if they get sick that they spend hundreds of dollars to buy MediGap protection. And yet, as a result of the Republican budget this House adopted today, people on Medicare are going to have to pay a lot more. Their MediGap premiums will soar--whether they try to economize by using Medicare Select or not. And if they just can't afford a Medigap policy any more--they will live in fear of having to pay a lot of out- of-pocket costs. Some 4 million seniors under this Republican budget may find that they can't even afford to pay the higher premium to keep Medicare Part B protection at all. Once Medicaid is an under-financed block grant program--which is what the Republican budget makes it--seniors can forget about any assurance of help from Medicaid to pay their Medicare premiums. Remember, who the typical person is who relies on Medicare. Most Medicare beneficiaries have modest incomes of $25,000 or less. Nearly a third of them depend on Social Security for almost all of their income. And now they are going to find that this Republican budget means that half of their Social Security COLA is being eaten up by increased premiums and cost-sharing in Medicare. We ought to be talking today about how to make Medicare better--about how to help people who can't afford the prescription drugs they need, who fear ending up in a nursing home that they can't afford. Instead this House adopted a Republican budget that slashes the Federal commitment to Medicare and Medicaid. And we now are about to adopt a conference report which extends a program which might be costing Medicare money instead of saving it. This is not responsible legislating. This is not putting the interests of Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries first. I urge rejection of the conference report.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise against this bill that devastates Medicare and Medicaid.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to Nandor Markovic, who will be honoree of the evening of B'nai David-Judea Congregation's 47th Annual Tribute Dinner on June 25, 1995. Mr. Markovic survived the Holocaust, the most horrible episode in Jewish history, but not before witnessing the destruction of his hometown and suffering the travail of six concentration camps, including the notorious camp at Auschwitz. Despite his terrible suffering during this dark period, Nandor Markovic never abandoned his faith in God or his confidence in the ultimate survival of the Jewish people. Steeped in the sophisticated Judaic studies of the Yeshivot of his native Czechoslovakia, he became a leader in the struggle for the creation of the State of Israel and served as a commander in the war of independence. Nandor Markovic and his wife, Frances, have devoted themselves to numerous worthwhile activities in Los Angeles and Israel. Mr. Markovic has served as president or chairman of the board of B'nai David-Judea Congregation for 15 years and has applied his erudition in matters of Jewish law to the work of B'nai David-Judea Congregation since 1960. [[Page E 1314]] Mr. Speaker, I ask the Members of the House of Representatives to join me in saluting Nandor Markovic, his courage, and the great achievements he has made in his extraordinary life. I wish him happiness, good health, and enduring vigor to lead B'nai David-Judea Congregation and to continue in his role as prominent leader of our community.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, please join me in saluting Mina and Jordan Rush, who will receive the service award for their vision of the future at the 47th Annual Tribute Dinner of B'nai David-Judea Congregation on June 25, 1995. Mina Rush has served B'nai David-Judea Congregation in numerous capacities for many years. She has been a member of the board of directors, membership chairman, and co-chairman of the annual banquet. Mina Rush has always generously and selflessly devoted herself to worthwhile causes. She has served the State of Israel and cooperated with the Israel Defense Forces in her work with the Volunteers for Israel. She also led the recent Kiev emergency relief project that provided enormous quantities of food for a starving community. Jordan Rush has had a distinguished career in entertainment as a producer, director, and actor. He served in these roles in ``The Mirror,'' which was honored at the Southwest Film Festival. As a humanitarian, he has chaired Volunteers for Israel and Adopt a Soviet Family, a program of the Jewish Federation. Proud parents of Tzvia, Atara, and Harel, the Rushes have always been concerned with the future of our Jewish youth. Their entire family worships regularly at B'nai David-Judea Congregation. They have participated in numerous Torah study classes and have been active in the Eliztur Sports League, of which Jordan Rush was a founder. Mr. Speaker, I ask you and my colleagues to join me in congratulating Mina and Jordan Rush for receiving the prestigious Service Award of B'nai David-Judea Congregation and in expressing appreciation for their many contributions to our community. I extend to them great thanks and wish them every happiness and success in all future endeavors.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise with regret to express my opposition to the proposed Corrections Day Calendar. I strongly support the idea of correcting truly silly regulations. But I fear that the new corrections procedure we are considering will become a fast track for special interests to stop regulations that protect public health and the environment. My concern is not hypothetical. We have already seen many examples this Congress of special interest fixes being described as ``corrections.'' Consider the recent actions of the House Budget Committee report. Last month, the Budget Committee identified over 50 regulations in its budget report that it said are ``the most expensive and onerous and appear ripe for termination or reform.'' Unfortunately, the Budget Committee's list wasn't limited to expensive and onerous regulations that truly need correction. Instead, it included many regulations whose correction would enrich special interests at the expense of public health. One example involves the tobacco industry. This industry is the Nation's biggest special interest. During the last election cycle alone, the tobacco industry gave $2 million in soft money to the Republican Party. This powerful special interest is an enormous beneficiary of the corrections proposed by the Budget Committee. The Budget Committee recommends that Congress--and I quote--``rescind enforcement of laws regarding cigarette sales to minors''--Budget Report at page 171. The committee also recommends that Congress prevent OSHA from regulating exposure to environmental tobacco smoke--a known human lung carcinogen. I cannot support a new corrections process that could be used by the tobacco industry to increase their cigarette sales to children. The tobacco companies are by no means the only special interest that is likely to benefit from the new process. The Budget Committee also recommends that we stop the Department of Agriculture from finalizing its regulations to modernize meat inspections. These regulations are estimated to save thousands of lives and prevent millions of illnesses each year. Yet they are put in jeopardy by the rule changes we are considering today. Other examples of regulations that the Budget Committee wants to correct include: The Clean Air Act requirements that sources of toxic emissions monitor and report their emissions. The requirements that cars meet minimum fuel-efficiency standards. Key requirements to clean up drinking water. The regulations implementing the motor-voter law. We must not adopt a corrections process that would make it easier for special interests to subvert the legislative process and achieve goals like those proposed by the Budget Committee. Unfortunately, I am afraid that the proposal before us will have exactly this result.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thought it was really out of place and I resented the fact that there was a personal attack on me by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon]. The gentleman did not address the issues I raised on why this bill is going to be a vehicle for special interest. I would like to have a corrections day to correct silly regulations, but I do not want a vehicle, which I fear this will be, to give special interests an opportunity to get a return on their investment in the candidacies of a lot of people that are in power in this institution.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask you and my colleagues to join me in saluting my dear uncle, Ben Waxman, on his 80th birthday which will be celebrated on June 11, 1995 at the home of his deeply devoted daughter and son-in-law, Audrey and Jerry Sandler, in Boca Raton, FL. Ben Waxman was born 80 years ago in Montreal, Canada. Before he retired to Florida, he was a long-time resident of the Los Angeles area as a distinguished attorney, philanthropist, Democratic Party activist, and community leader. Ben earned his law degree at the Southwestern Law School Night Program and he developed a thriving law practice. Prior to his legal career, he worked with his brother Al S. Waxman as a journalist and editor for the Los Angeles Reporter. Ben always had great concern for public policy and he contributed to his community in myriad ways. He was a leader in the B'nai B'rith, he belonged to the Masonic Order, and he diligently worked on behalf of the Shriner's Children's Hospital. Loving parents of twin sons, David and the late Joel, Ben and his wife Muriel were among the most active participants in the Questers organization. The Questers successfully developed techniques for allowing the developmentally disabled and others to realize their maximum potential through innovative programs for independent living. Joel and David, as well as David's wife Sherry Waxman, were active in this group. As a Democratic Party activist, Ben was especially close to the late Vice President Hubert Humphrey. He and Muriel were his special guests at the inauguration of President Lyndon Johnson and Vice President Humphrey in 1965. Since his retirement, Ben has found a most useful role for his decades of legal experience and longstanding concern for youth. He serves as a volunteer referee with the Boca Raton courts, working to keep juveniles out of the criminal justice system and in school and involved in productive community service. Among the friends and relatives who will celebrate Ben's birthday are his devoted sister-in-law, Sandi Steinberg; Sandi's sons, Rusty, Michael, and Andy, who will be coming from Los Angeles; Muriel's sister, Shirley Rosenbloom, who will be coming from St. Paul, MN; Ben's son, David, and his daughter-in-law, Sherry from Portland, OR; and Ben's adored granddaughters, Carrie and Lisa. The hostess of this celebration will be Ben's beloved wife, Muriel, who has been his trusted help-mate, inspiration, and greatest strength for five decades. Mr. Speaker, I ask you and my colleagues to join me in congratulating Ben Waxman on this momentous occasion and in wishing him happiness, good health, and the energy to continue his humanitarian work.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am almost amused when I hear our colleagues on the other side of the aisle say, ``Don't let the Democrats frighten the elderly.'' Then they go talk about how the trust fund is going to go bankrupt and they are going to save Medicare. The fact of the matter is when you look at the extent of the budget cuts that they are proposing in Medicare, it is far beyond anything to deal with the trust fund. It is going to devastate the Medicare Program. That relates to the issue that is before us today. We need to focus on why we have MediGap policies and the Medicare Select policies. We need these for one simple reason. Medicare requires people to pay a lot of money out of pocket right now when they get sick and use services. Most Medicare beneficiaries are so frightened by the amounts they will have to pay if they get sick that they take out a supplemental insurance policy to protect themselves. Yet in this budget resolution that was adopted by my Republican colleagues in the House last week, people on Medicare are going to have to pay a lot more money than they already do out of their own pockets. Their MediGap premiums are going to soar, whether they try to economize by using Medicare Select or not, or if they decide they cannot afford the premium for a supplemental policy any longer, they are going to run the liability of having to pay very high cost-sharing amounts. Medicare is not a program giving a lot of wealthy people a free ride, contrary to what some of our Republican friends try to use as a characterization. Most Medicare beneficiaries have modest incomes of $25,000 a year or less. They already pay a hefty deductible of $716 if they have to go to a hospital. They pay a part B premium to get coverage for physician services which is already $550 a year. They have a $100 deductible and coinsurance on these services. Mr. Speaker, if they really get sick, they can exhaust their coverage entirely. On top of that, they have no coverage for prescription drugs, and only Medicaid to rely on if they have to go into a nursing home. It is no wonder they end up paying on the average something like $840 in premiums for MediGap coverage. What is the answer of my Republican colleagues? To ask them to pay more. The AARP has estimated the average Medicare beneficiary will pay something like $3,500 more out of pocket over the next 7 years if the changes in the House budget, the requirements that the Republicans are looking at, go into effect. Mr. Speaker, I want to insert my full statement in the Record, but I wanted to take this time to point out that what really is going on is what people are now paying is only a small portion of what they are going to have to pay if the Republican budget goes through. Mr. Speaker, as the House goes to conference with the Senate to determine the period during which Medicare Select products can be marketed, it is important to focus on why we have MediGap policies, and Medicare Select policies. We need these policies for one simple reason: Medicare requires people to pay a lot of money out-of-pocket when they get sick and use services. Most Medicare beneficiaries are so frightened by the amounts they will have to pay if they get sick that they take out a supplemental insurance policy to protect themselves. And yet, in the budget resolution my Republican colleagues passed in the House last week, people on Medicare are going to have to pay a lot more. Their MediGap premiums will soar--whether they try to economize by using Medicare Select or not--or, if they decide they cannot afford the premium for a supplemental policy any longer, they will risk liability for very high cost-sharing amounts. Medicare is not a program giving a lot of wealthy people a free ride. Most Medicare beneficiaries have modest incomes of $25,000 or less. They already pay a hefty deductible of $716 if they have to go into the hospital. They pay a part B premium to get coverage for physician services which is nearly $550 a year. They have a $100 deductible and coinsurance on those services. If they get really sick, they can exhaust their coverage entirely. And on top of all that, they have no coverage for prescription drugs, and only Medicaid to rely on if they have to go into a nursing home. It is no wonder they end up paying on the average something like $840 in premiums for MediGap coverage. And what is the answer of my Republican colleagues? To ask them to pay more. The AARP has estimated that the average Medicare beneficiary will pay something like $3,500 more out of pocket over these next 7 years if the changes this House budget requires go into effect. People who try to protect themselves with MediGap insurance will find that their MediGap premiums are going to skyrocket. That is going to take money out of the pockets of Medicare beneficiaries just as surely as a tax increase. And people who decide to get their coverage through a Medicare Select policy will find they are faced by very large cost-sharing obligations if they choose a physician that is not covered by their plan. Exercising their right to choose a physician is going to be an expensive one. Every Medicare beneficiary is going to have to pay more cost-sharing or higher MediGap premiums, whatever their economic circumstances. Even if they are struggling along with just their Social Security check to support them. And the poorest of our elderly will suffer the most. Today, Medicaid pays their premium for Medicare, and helps them pay their cost-sharing. But once Medicaid is gone, and we have capped the Federal dollars we spend on that program, that help will not be there any longer. And let me also note something else that will not be there once Medicaid becomes a block grant--the assurance of nursing home care for those who need it and cannot afford it. Once again, the middle-class American family is going to have to struggle with paying $35,000 or $40,000 a year for their elderly parent's nursing home care. This budget is bad for you if you are old or you are sick. Medicare and Medicaid coverage will be less--and it is not enough today. A more expensive Medicare Select or other MediGap policy will not be an answer. This bill on which the House goes into conference today is of minor significance in the light of the changes the budget resolution will mean for the Medicare Program. And that is the issue that should be on the minds of our House conferees as they meet with our colleagues in the Senate.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, on May 23, the Alliance for Justice--a coalition of organizations with a history of working for equal justice--honored Tom Stoddard for his long career. I want to take the opportunity to do so as well. Now is precisely the right time to honor Tom Stoddard. This Congress is dominated by politicians who would have us march backward and have us repeal the progress of the last 25 years, especially the ideals of equal justice. But Tom embodies a different philosophy, one first said by Frederick Douglass: ``Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. If there is no struggle, there is no progress.'' In that spirit, Tom has worked and struggled. For years after the Nation decided that race discrimination, sex discrimination, religious discrimination, and finally disability discrimination were all wrong-- discrimination against gay men and lesbians is not just allowed, it is encouraged, it is joked about, it is expected. Tom has worked against that, working for what the opposition calls ``the special rights for gay people.'' He has worked for the ``special right'' to work if you are qualified; the ``special right'' to live in the privacy of your home with those you love; the ``special right'' to have families; the ``special right'' to speak your mind; the ``special right'' to serve your country; [[Page E1107]] and the ``special right'' to have photographs on your desk, to have picnics in public places, and to care for your friends who are sick. He has worked for the ``special right'' to be free and equal and unafraid in America. Tom has done all this by speaking, teaching, advocating, organizing, and writing. He has been a model for young people who care about progress, and he has been a reminder for older people that not all justice has yet been done. Tom is the kind of American who has made the Nation make the quantum leap from thinking about gay civil rights as a fringe issue to gay civil rights as a fundamental issue. The Alliance for Justice has made these leaps before, leading the Nation closer to liberty and justice for all. I am pleased to join with the Alliance in honoring Tom Stoddard as a pioneer in that fight, and as a man whose work has changed politics for the better and forever.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. I thank the gentlewoman for her statement which talks about Medicare. But there is Medicare and Medicaid and our poorest of the poor are on the Medicaid Program. In fact most of the people on Medicaid are children, but most of the money goes to the elderly in nursing homes. That program is going to be devastated, it is going to be devastated, it is going to be blockgranted and cut in the amount that will go to the States. But I just recall hearing from Edna Ferris, who talked to us at a conference on Monday. She talked about how they struggled with her husband who had Alzheimer's, she tried to keep him home as long as she could. When she could not manage it anymore, she looked to the Medicaid Program to help pay for the nursing home costs, which can be $35,000 a year, and more, and she did not have that money. So she went on Medicaid and the Medicaid Program kept her from being impoverished, allowed her to keep some of their money so she could live at home. If she had no Medicaid to protect her, all of her resources would have gone to that nursing-home care, and maybe her husband would not have been able to get in the nursing home because they are not going to take somebody for free. So these programs help the most vulnerable in our population, and we should not forget that.