Henry Waxman

Mr. WAXMAN

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

Mr. WAXMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I want to join in support of this amendment. I think it is a very constructive one. This analysis about the competitive situation between the public and the private side will be a very useful one. I think this is a helpful amendment and I urge support for it.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, what this amendment seeks to do is to have the Congress understand that if we are going to cut back on these programs for low- income people, the most vulnerable people in our society, that we are creating an unfunded mandate on local governments either to have to make up the difference in dollars or to cut some of these people adrift from food stamps or from supplemental security income or WIC. These are programs for very, very low-income people. When we had the Gramm-Rudman bill before us, we specifically said that those programs would not be required to undergo the sequestrations that would be required to be placed on other Government programs, because we wanted to treat these with a special concern. I think the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio is a good one. If we are going to cut these programs that affect the low income in our society, let us know about it, let us have a point of order, and let a specific vote be cast in order to accomplish that goal with the full information before us that we are hurting those who are most vulnerable in our society. I urge support for the Hall amendment.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment has been worked out with the majority. It is noncontroversial, a perfecting amendment to clarify what CBO is supposed to do if it is not able to estimate the impact on State or local governments. It provides in this situation that CBO may give the committee a statement that it is not feasible to estimate the cost. We have worked this out. I would urge support for the legislation.

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

Mr. WAXMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, the bill before us provides that it would be considered an unfunded mandate if we increase the stringency in an entitlement program as a condition of assistance. Now, the way this is defined, I think it applies perhaps exclusively, but certainly to the Medicaid program. What my amendment would provide is that if there is an increase in the stringency of conditions of assistance in Medicaid, this would not apply if the change in the requirements is to assure the fiscal integrity of the program to assure that expenditures are for the purposes that are legitimate under the program or to prevent fraud and abuse by people or providers receiving payment under the program. This is a good Government amendment. If we are, let's say under the Medicaid Program, going to pay for health care services for poor people and we ask the States to be sure to police the program to be sure that there is no fraud or abuse being committed, if in that increased stringency requirement in order to protect the integrity of the program the States are required to do more than would otherwise be the case, we should consider that an unfunded mandate that would be prevented. We have, as most of you know, a reverse suggestion of what we ordinarily think about in this unfunded mandate. We have a provision for extra payments by the Federal Government when the States provide assistance to disproportionate share institutions. These are usually hospitals that serve a disproportionate share of low-income people and we want to provide extra reimbursement to them. But some of the States took advantage of this provision and they concocted schemes to rip off Federal dollars to which they were not entitled. They came in and requested that the Federal Government match money that they put up and then used the Federal dollars under Medicaid for things that had nothing to do with Medicaid. Medicaid was being used as a revenue-sharing program. Let me just illustrate this by the fact that under this loophole States collected billions of dollars of Federal Medicaid spending. We went in the space of Federal Medicaid spending. We went in the space of about 3 years from spending $300 million on disproportionate share payments to $11 billion. When we came back in 1993 in a bipartisan way and we said this is a loophole that cannot be tolerated, we plugged up that loophole. But if this mandates bill were in effect, that would be considered increased stringency of the program and the States could come back and say you cannot increase the stringency of the program as it relates to them, even though it plugged up a loophole by which they got Federal dollars from the Federal Government to which they were not entitled. Those of us who want to protect the integrity of a program like Medicaid to make sure States police for fraud and abuse, make sure the States are protecting the integrity of the dollars being spent by the Federal Government, those things should not be considered unfunded mandates. We should not subject such a requirement and amendment would accomplish that result. So I would urge an aye vote for this amendment. It is not dissimilar, by the way, to the exceptions in this legislation that say that when we require compliance with accounting and auditing procedures with respect to grants or other money or property provided by the Federal Government, that should not be considered an unfunded mandate under section 4 limitations on the limits of the legislation. But I do not believe that that limitation on the application of what is considered unfunded mandate means where we say if it is to comply with accounting and auditing procedures, it would apply to something more to protect the fiscal integrity of the Medicaid Program. Mr. Chairman, I ask support for this amendment.

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

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 5 provides that Federal agencies must consult with State and local governments before proposing Federal regulations. This amendment that I am offering modifies this provision to require that Federal agencies also consult with concerned citizens at the same time. The amendment was adopted without dissent in the full Committee on Government Operations in the last Congress in October. The amendment recognizes that concerned citizens should have the same rights to participate in the rulemaking process as State and local governments. For example, if EPA is considering a new drinking water standard, the public that drinks the water should have just as much input into the standard as the public water suppliers who have to comply with that standard. I think this amendment makes a great deal of sense. It brings about a consultation with all those who are involved in the matter, and therefore would help those who are about to propose regulations to make the wisest regulations possible. I urge support for the amendment.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment has been worked out in consultation with the majority. Section 201(c)(2) requires an evaluation of private sector costs associated with major rules that appear to largely duplicate the evaluation required in section 202. Thus the amendment improves the bill by striking an apparently redundant provision. The amendment is also necessary because the language in section 201(c)(2) used vague terms like regulatory requirement that could have been interpreted to cover more than major rules. This amendment eliminates these potential ambiguities. Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the amendment.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer my amendment numbered 140.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to subsection (c) of section 201.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, No. 144.

Mr. WAXMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I understand the point the gentleman is making, that you think all parties ought to be involved, but I wanted to point out that the comment period is after a proposal is already on the table. And this bill provides that State and local governments can come in in advance. If they are going to come in in advance, then private citizens ought to be able to come in in advance and be able to participate on equal terms. What we are proposing to do is there ought to be equal terms for comments, whether it be by a local government or by other concerned citizens.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make the point that if we really cared about children, we would be spending more money on children now. The gentleman indicated he thought it was a high priority, and we will want to spend money. Yet we do not fund health care for all kids who are poor. We do not fund adequate immunizations for them. The fastest growing poverty group in this country are children. We are not doing what we should be doing now.

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

Mr. WAXMAN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, we have heard over and over again that we will have a chance to vote on these issues after we get this analysis of the cost. But my colleagues know what will happen is a lot of people will say, ``I'd like to be for this program for kids, but I can't vote for an unfunded mandate. I'd like to be for an increase in the minimum wage, but I can't vote for an unfunded mandate. I'd like to be for environmental protection, but I can't vote for an unfunded mandate.'' Mr. Chairman, we are going to hear that over and over again. It is going to be a way for people to hide their true feelings and act as if they are really for protecting kids when in fact what they are doing is not willing to put their votes really up front. So, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney], and I urge all my colleagues to vote for it.

Mr. WAXMAN. I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that what the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney] is saying is absolutely correct. What higher priority should we have in this country than our children? And we should not put any more barriers in the way of trying to work at both a cooperative level with the Federal Government, and the State and local governments, and nonprofit organizations, to serve those kids particularly who are coming from poor homes, and there are exemptions in this legislation, and I cannot see why any of those exemptions are more deserving than having one for the children of this Nation. So, Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentlewoman from New York for this amendment. I think it is a wise one, and I urge all of my colleagues to support it.

Mr. WAXMAN

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

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman. I would indicate this is not an improvement to have a committee have to consider public versus private owned operations to see whether they ought to be put in the same competitive situation. Except for this legislation, we would have never tried to put one against another. Specifically I cannot imagine that we would want to aid a publicly owned business, so-to-speak, in competition with a privately owned one. I do not think this legislation is an improvement in that regard. The improvement would be if we exempted these very clear Federal responsibilities of dealing with interstate environmental problems, especially one as serious as hazardous nuclear waste disposal.

Mr. WAXMAN. It without this legislation becoming law does not make a distinction between privately and publicly owned. If there is a regulation to protect the consumers or environment or to protect public health, it would apply equally. There is no reason why we ought to even put them in a position where one ought to be regulated and the other not, if the reasoning for the regulation is sound.

Mr. WAXMAN. It does not prohibit existing law. It strengthens what would otherwise be in the legislation itself.