Henry Waxman

Mr. WAXMAN

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

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, the concern is that once we have that precedent, we will have a never-ending series of small changes that people will try to make in our laws--whether it is the drinking water law or some other statutory environmental legislation. So for that reason, there is this reluctance to accept this proposal offered as bill language.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I listened carefully to the colloquy that just took place and I want to point out that that colloquy may reflect the views of the two gentlemen who entered into it, but I do not think they accurately reflect the views of the House. Last week the House adopted an amendment to the Knollenberg language that came out of the Committee on Appropriations, an amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). The Obey amendment made it quite clear that the EPA would not be precluded from doing studies and educational efforts, that the House did not want the Knollenberg language to be interpreted so narrowly, and so I do not know whether that colloquy was an attempt to make some legislative history, but I just want to use this opportunity to point out that I do not think it reflects the views of the House.

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

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his clarification. I do want to point out that some of the colloquy that I heard reflected his individual views, and it did not reflect how I interpret Knollenberg language, as amended by Obey, and should not be used for any legal interpretation of the Knollenberg amendment as so modified. Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

Mr. WAXMAN. I want to be as helpful as I possibly can.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to join with the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) in making my personal commitment to the gentleman as well that if we can work on this as report language, we will do everything that both of us can to make sure that the goals the gentleman wants are accomplished.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill, and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states, in pertinent part, ``No amendment to a general appropriations bill shall be in order if changing existing law . . . .'' This amendment gives affirmative direction, and in effect imposes additional duties, modifies existing powers and duties, and I therefore ask that the amendment be considered out of order.

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

Mr. WAXMAN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would point out that the gentleman is absolutely correct. I do not think that the Knollenberg language, as amended by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) would preclude the EPA from developing any information they need to permit an adequate ratification debate and to express their views on such a debate on behalf of the administration.

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

Mr. WAXMAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would insist on it.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I know the gentleman is trying to deal with a very real problem in the gentleman's State. As I understand it, the language that the gentleman has worked out would be acceptable to the Administrator in the report of this legislation. But the Administrator is reluctant to have the precedent of having this language inserted in the statute itself. The gentleman expressed his concern that perhaps the report language would not be taken seriously, and statutory language would be necessary to accomplish the goals. I would point out to the gentleman that if the Administrator is supporting this language----

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

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

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, the Administrator is willing to commit to follow the language that we would seek to have in the report. The gentleman has more assurance than simply report language, because the one to whom it is directed is promising to carry it out. The subsequent point I want to make is that just last week, as we discussed this bill, we had a heated debate over whether the report language that I and others were trying to strike in the appropriations bill would be taken seriously and we had assurances from the Chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee that report language is not binding, but we were concerned that the report language would be intimidating to the EPA, and that we did not want that report language to go forward. So my point to the gentleman is that I regret that I am going to have to make the point of order, but I would have hoped that this could have been in the report, and that the whole issue might have been avoided.

Mr. WAXMAN. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I think the concern the Administrator has, and I think it is a legitimate one, is that if we start legislating on specific problems in appropriations bills----

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

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs), who serves in this House from the State of California, is retiring from his position at the end of this year; and I would make a suggestion that if he wants to get involved in the laws adopted by the City of San Francisco, he ought go to San Francisco and run for the city council. Because what this amendment has us do here in Washington is interfere with the legitimate local judgments about city contracts by the city itself. It prohibits the use of Federal funds to implement Chapter 12B of San Francisco's Administrative Code, but, obviously, the City does not use Federal funds to implement its ordinances. It does not use Federal funds to pay its employees or its department of public works. When the City issues an RFP, it does not spend Federal dollars. So what is this amendment all about? It is a message amendment. It is an attack on the City of San Francisco. It is an affront to the citizens of San Francisco and to the progressive corporate citizenship of companies which provide domestic partner benefits. It is a slap at both small mom and pop businesses and Fortune 500 companies like American Express, IBM, and Shell Oil. The amendment may not have any real effect on the City's business, but it will unquestionably encourage prejudice and intolerance. It will encourage future attacks on local government, and it will fail to do what it purportedly seeks to accomplish; it will fail to interfere with San Francisco's local judgment about its own contracts. Mr. Chairman, I want to put into the Record following my comments here on the floor a letter from the Human Rights Campaign Fund, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the United States Conference of Mayors, and the American Civil Liberties Union, and a resolution adopted by the City of Los Angeles, all opposing this amendment. I urge my colleagues to oppose it. It is an unwarranted, extraordinary interference with local community judgment. It is not the job of the Congress to be micromanaging the business of American cities. Mr. Chairman, I urge defeat of this amendment. I include at this time the letters I just referenced. Vote No on the Riggs Amendment to VA-HUD Appropriations (Working for Lesbian and Gay Equal Rights) Representative Riggs (R-CA) intends to introduce an amendment when the House resumes consideration of the VA-HUD Appropriations bill. The amendment would prohibit the City of San Francisco from using VA-HUD funds to implement its entire city ordinance against discrimination in city contracts. The ordinance requires all city contractors to prohibit discrimination based on factors which include race, color, religion, sexual orientation, domestic partner status, marital status, or AIDS/HIV status. UNPRECEDENTED FEDERAL INTERVENTION. The Riggs amendment is an example of gross micro-management of one particular city by the federal government. Congress sets a dangerous precedent and poses a threat to all localities if it begins to use its power to appropriate funds as a means to intimidate and coerce local governments. While the federal government conditions the use of federal funds, these conditions are based on the federal law authorizing the grant program (which is openly debated in Congress) or existing federal government regulations on the use of federal funds (which are subject to public comment). The Riggs amendment is ``de facto'' legislation on an appropriations bill without appropriate committee consideration and debate. NO NATIONAL INTEREST AT STAKE. In a recent decision regarding the San Francisco ordinance, the U.S. District Court held that local governments have the discretion, as do individual consumers, to pick and choose the companies and organizations with which they will do business. Federal grant requirements similarly require grantees to comply with civil rights and other federal law in order to do business with the federal government. While Representative Riggs may disagree with San Francisco's ordinance, there is no national interest at stake in its application. MEAN SPIRITED PUNISHMENT. Punishing the people in one particular city because their duly elected leaders set a government policy clearly within their jurisdiction is a mean-spirited Congressional action. While the Riggs amendment does not cut off federal funds, use of those funds forces the city to violate its own rules and regulations. VA-HUD dollars are meant to help state and local governments meet the needs of their citizens. They are not meant to punish a locality for setting government policy. THE ORDINANCE IS FLEXIBLE. The San Francisco ordinance requires city contractors who already provide benefits to married partners of employees to also provide benefits to domestic partners of employees. Several exceptions to the ordinance exist which, for example, have allowed San Francisco to craft an agreement with Catholic Charities that is satisfactory to both. Catholic Charities is now delivering care, housing, counseling and other services under a city contract.

Mr. WAXMAN. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. WAXMAN. My inquiry is whether it is timely to ask for another separate vote in the House of an amendment adopted in committee.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, today this House has a very basic decision to make: Are we going to pass effective and enforceable legislation to ensure a patient bill of rights for people in this country? Are we going to agree to the Ganske-Dingell proposal which is going to give people the rights they need to deal with arbitrary and unfair treatment by big insurance companies and HMOs? Or are we going to rush through a Republican leadership bill that is designed to do just one thing, fool people into thinking that something is being done to help them just long enough to get through the next election? Because that is exactly the issue before us. Are we going to pass legislation that requires HMOs to have an adequate number and variety of health care providers so that people can get the services they need and are paying for? The Ganske-Dingell bill does that. The Republican leadership bill does not. Are we going to be sure that people can get to a specialist if they need one? Ganske-Dingell says yes. The Republican bill does not. Are we going to let insurance companies make the decisions about what medical patients need? Ganske-Dingell says decisions belong to the patients and their doctors. The Republican bill does not. That is why the doctors support the Ganske-Dingell legislation. Today this House has a very basic decision to make: are we going to pass effective and enforceable legislation to ensure a patient bill of rights for people in this country? Are we going to agree to the Ganske-Dingell proposal which is going to give people the rights they need to deal with arbitrary and unfair treatment by big insurance companies and HMO's? Or are we going to rush through a Republican leadership bill that is designed to do just one thing: fool people into thinking that something is being done to help them just long enough to get through the next election. Because that is exactly the issue before us. Are we going to pass legislation that requires HMO's to have an adequate number and variety of health care providers so that people can get the services they need--and are paying for? The Ganske-Dingell bill does that. The Republican leadership bill does not. Are we going to be sure that people can get to a specialist if they need one? Ganske-Dingell says yes. The Republican bill does not. Are we going to let insurance companies make the decisions about what medical care patients need? Ganske-Dingell says that decision belongs to the doctor and the patient. The Republican bill does not. It actually increases the power of insurance companies to decide what is medically necessary. Since when did insurance bureaucrats become qualified to be doctors? Are we going to override the protections the States have enacted to assure people health benefits and give them some consumer protections? Ganske-Dingell builds on and strengthens them. The Republican leadership bill actually takes away the protections that are there. And are we going to make sure that people have an effective way to enforce the rights we are giving them, or not? Ganske-Dingell says if you can't enforce it, you don't have it. The Republican leadership bill sneaks in language that makes sure the insurance companies decision about what is medically necessary is not going to be challenged. We owe the American people legislation that works to protect their rights. We need to level the field between big insurance and their desire to profits, and patients who depend on their insurance and HMOs for their health care. We owe people a way to make sure they get the medical services they need from their HMO or any other health plan. This debate should be about patients, not profits. The Republican leadership bill is on this floor today only for one reason: after months of opposition and working hand in hand with big insurance to kill any patient bill of rights, they noticed the polls told them the American people were demanding action. So Mr. Gingrich and his allies have responded with a cynical bill that is designed to look like it's doing something when it is not. They've made sure that this bill didn't get looked at by the Committees or the public. They've made sure that we vote on this before anyone has a chance to know what it really does. They claimed to have privacy protections--but actually they made it OK to sell medical records. When they were caught, they changed it. They claimed to make sure emergency care would be covered if a prudent person would think it was necessary. But they actually weakened the protections we already have in law for Medicare beneficiaries. They said severe pain wouldn't be a reason to go. They said the HMO could make you foot most of the bill if you didn't go to their facility. In other words, they gutted the protections. Well they got caught again, so they changed it. How many things are in this bill that haven't been found yet? It's a cynical way to deal with people's lives and health care. Does anyone believe that a Republican leadership that has urged insurance companies to spend money to defeat these bills is actually going to write a good one? Does anyone believe that after they've fought it every step of the way, they've suddenly seen the light? Let's adopt the bill that works. Let's adopt the bill that has been endorsed by the doctors and the nurses and the patients. Let's adopt the Ganske-Dingell bill.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. The amendment before us is one that everyone ought to support. It is common sense. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is saying that, whatever limitations we place on the Environmental Protection Agency or the Council for Environmental Quality, we should not say to them they cannot conduct educational outreach or informational seminars. Can my colleagues imagine, in the face of a global warming potential threat, we would say to the agencies that run our environmental policies, they cannot hold informational seminars, they cannot have educational outreach? That is absurd. That is absolutely absurd to have that kind of restriction. Yet that restriction is in the bill that is before us. And the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is trying to reach that part of the bill. But the bill before us is even more extreme than just that, because the bill before us would stop the Environmental Protection Agency and the CEQ from looking at how to deal with the problem or developing some proposals. What those who supported the language known as the Knollenberg provisions say they were trying to do was that they were trying to stop the administration and any of these agencies from trying to implement a treaty on global warming until that treaty has been ratified, as is required, under the Constitution by the Senate of the United States. I accept that. No one is disputing that they should not implement a treaty that has not been ratified. But to say they cannot hold educational outreach, informational seminars or develop proposals is like telling them, ``Don't think about this issue. Put your head in the sand. Don't even think about this issue. We don't want you to do anything until we ratify the treaties, if we ever ratify a treaty.'' If that treaty came up, and I do not think it will be proposed in its present form, but let us say the administration has worked out a treaty on global warming, this is a threat to our planet, many nations must be involved in stopping this threat, and they wanted then to get ratification of an agreement. The first question any reasonable Senator would ask is, ``How do you plan to implement this? What ideas do you have for dealing with the problem of greenhouse gases that cause global warming?'' And if we do not change this bill, the EPA and the CEQ, the agencies that deal with these problems for the United States Government, could not even be thinking about how to implement any kind of treaty or strategies that we might want to undertake. The Obey amendment is one that everybody ought to vote for, but it is not enough. We have got to strike the rest of the language in this appropriations bill that stops any kind of thinking through a strategy, developing a way to deal with greenhouse gases and the climate change problem. I think everybody will support this Obey amendment. Maybe a few people will vote against it. But do not feel that in adopting this amendment we have solved the problems that this legislation that is before us has created, because we must go further. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) is going to offer an amendment shortly. That amendment would be to untie the hands of the Federal agencies when they look at the global climate issues. As I understand his amendment, he will also agree not to allow any implementation, implementation or putting into effect any proposals until there is ratification of a treaty. But he would at least allow the agencies to think through the appropriate strategies. I support the Obey amendment. I will support the Greenwood amendment. I think we need to strike out of these funding bills language that stops government from enforcing the laws on the books and developing strategies for a problem that none of us thought about maybe 5 years ago but are starting to worry about when we hear leading scientists in the country tell us that global warming is not some theory, it is a reality that we must take seriously.

Mr. WAXMAN. It is not the intention of this amendment to slow down EPA's implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act in any way. Registration of new, safer pesticides and issuance of emergency exemptions are important to agency functions, just as tolerance reassessment is. My amendment would address the concern that report language accompanying this bill could be construed to reprioritize implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act away from public health protection and undermine the new statutory safety standards established by the FQPA.

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