Henry Waxman

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The gentleman from Florida acted as if this were a government subsidy for some abortion procedure. We are not talking about a government subsidy, we are talking about the Food and Drug Administration reviewing an application by a manufacturer who proposes to make a drug for a specific purpose that he wants to go out and sell, which is legal. Whether Members like abortion or not, it is legal to have abortions in this country. Why should we stop the FDA from being able to consider a drug that might be used for an abortion that would be safer than other abortion procedures? Abortion is not going to stop. It is legal. Why should we now impose our judgment, saying that the FDA cannot even look at the science of what a manufacturer presents to it? This amendment says we cannot test the substance, we cannot learn how it works, or judge if it has benefits over other procedures. Even if it became an approved drug, we could not manufacture it. This is the kind of an amendment that bars private actions in the free market. What the FDA does is not a subsidy. The FDA scrutinizes the science. They do not make judgments as to what products are brought before them, nor should they. This amendment is wrong. It is certainly wrong to include it in an appropriation bill, where no one has examined the implication of this language for other FDA activities. It is going to have a chill on manufacturers who want to deal with anything that may be considered unpopular. Today it may be unpopular to have an abortifacient, but a lot of manufacturers feel it might become unpopular to develop new contraceptive drugs. The FDA may be stopped from reviewing those drugs. This is a very wrong and offensive precedent. I would strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding. I support the creation of this Select Committee. I think we should have a thorough investigation of the issues surrounding the possible transfer of sensitive technology to China. What I am opposed to is the use of Congressional investigations for partisan political purposes and the waste of taxpayer dollars. It does not serve the American people to have multiple Congressional committees spending millions of dollars investigating the very same issue over and over and over again. Unless we reject this rule and adopt the Condit amendment, we will have redundant investigations that are wasting millions of dollars investigating the very same issue. In March of this year, the Burton committee was given $1.8 million to continue its investigation of the influence of foreign contributions on U.S. policies. That was the mandate to the Burton committee. I want to point out to my colleague the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) that, notwithstanding all his complaints about what the Democrats did not do and how he is doing better in the allocation of money, on that Burton committee the Democrats were given 25 percent, not the third that we were all promised by the Republican Party. But that committee, nevertheless, was given $1.8 million to do this investigation. A major focus of it was to have been whether contributions from China influenced U.S. foreign policy and national security. Now we are going to create a Select Committee and we are talking about giving it $2.5 million to investigate the very same issue. The resolution authorizing the Select Committee specifically directs the Select Committee to investigate, and I quote, any effort by the government of the People's Republic of China or any other person to influence any of the foregoing matters through political contributions. That is what this Select Committee is going to investigate. That is what the Burton committee was investigating. It does not make sense to have a Select Committee investigating the same issues and then to have the Burton committee investigate it as well. The $1.8 million given to the Burton committee to investigate these issues should be transferred to the Select Committee and let the Select Committee do this job of investigating this matter. We should have one thorough, credible bipartisan investigation, not multiple, redundant investigations and use of taxpayers' money for partisan purposes and wasting that. One investigation will save the taxpayers millions and prevent this investigation from being used for partisan political purposes.

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

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I will not take a great deal of time on this debate, but I want to take this opportunity to commend the authors of this legislation, the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Neumann). As amended, the resolution underscores the importance of sound financial management. The effort to promote sound financial management should be and is bipartisan. As amended, this resolution deserves bipartisan support. The recent governmentwide audit shows that many Federal Government agencies do not have adequate financial management. This resolution sends an important message that we need to do more. It is also important to recognize the progress that has been made by this administration, by the Clinton administration, and by Vice President Gore's reinvention efforts. In 1992, only one Federal agency had a clean audit. Due to the administration's efforts, nine agencies now have clean audits. Next year 15 agencies are expected to have clean audits. So it is clear that while we have a long way to go, we are making progress. This resolution says that we want to build bipartisan support to push for more progress. In that effort I join my colleagues in urging all of the Members to vote for this resolution.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, this budget resolution is an outrage. If it were not for the seriousness of the subject, this proposal would be laughable. Surely no responsible legislator on either side of the aisle can vote for this resolution. Let's look at just one of the worst things this budget proposes to do: destroy the Medicaid program and cripple the child health program written with such fanfare only last year. This budget slashes those programs by $12 billion dollars over the next five years. That's actually $2 billion more than the Balanced Budget Act took from Medicaid. And every one of the Members in this House--certainly every one on the Commerce Committee--remembers how difficult and painful those cuts were. Now this budget says let's do it again. How do they think that can be accomplished? Well, the May 12 document suggested block granting the acute care part of the program; that's the code word for taking away the entitlement to services that elderly and disabled people, pregnant women and kids, rely on to get decent medical care and nursing home services. And nobody should be fooled into thinking the long term care part of the program would be spared. The actual budget proposal takes more than twice as much money out of Medicaid as the May 12 document assumed--so it is obvious that all the protections in all parts of the program-- including nursing home care--are on the chopping block. Some people must have some pretty short memories around here. Maybe they've forgotten that when you do this to Medicaid, you are saying to widows that there's no Federal protections to keep spouses from being impoverished when their husband or wife goes into a nursing home. That you are saying to people in nursing homes that the Federal Government washes its hands of any responsibility for decent quality, staffing and services in nursing homes. Maybe they've forgotten that it means saying to low-income Medicare beneficiaries that they won't be able to rely on help from Medicaid for services like prescription drugs or help with their cost sharing and premiums. Why the May 12 document says specifically that it would ``grant Governors the flexibility to determine how best to address provisions for beneficiaries with overlapping benefits.'' That's shorthand for saying there's no more Federal guarantee that poor Medicare beneficiaries will get any extra help. Or should we assume that Mr. Kasich and his majority at the Budget Committee think States will just cut services for kids instead? Is that the policy they want us to endorse? Let's see, what else could they have in mind. Do they mean to slash the DSH program so there's nothing left? Or just let people be pushed in managed care plans with a totally inadequate capitation rate? That's certainly an effective way to undermine any quality care in those settings. All this is made more outrageous because we already slashed this program last year. We've already seen such a dramatic slowing of the growth in the numbers of people covered by Medicaid that it's virtually flat. We've got a surplus, for heaven sakes. But the philosophy behind this budget seems to be, well let's cut taxes anyway, and let poor people bear the brunt of paying for it. Because in this budget, it's programs for poor people that take the massively disproportionate share of the cuts. This is idiocy. It's mean spirited, it's indefensible. If you vote for this budget, you might as well just say flat out to poor widows and poor kids in your district and all over the country--forget any guarantee of decent medical care. Forget any protections in Medicaid. There's lots of other reasons to vote against this budget. But what it does to Medicaid is reason enough. Vote no.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the intent of Mr. Gilman's amendment and support it. Indeed, the Kyoto Protocol will improve the national security of the United States by reducing the risk of catastrophic climate change, which would create upheaval and unrest throughout the world, including the potential for millions of environmental refugees. Furthermore, measures to implement the Kyoto Protocol can improve our security by reducing our dependence on imported oil through improved energy efficiency and increased reliance on domestic renewable energy resources. At the same time, the Administration has issued clear policy guidance assuring that implementation of the Kyoto Protocol will not impair or adversely affect the training or operation and maintenance of the United States Armed Forces. I am concerned, however, that the Amendment as drafted could be ambiguous. The Department of Defense was a leader in reducing the use of ozone depleting substances and has received awards for its efforts from the Environmental Protection Agency. In recent years DoD has made great strides in increasing energy efficiency in military housing. it has also invested in technologies, such as fuel cells, that could improve military effectiveness and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I am supporting the amendment because I do not believe it prevents DoD from pursuing these valuable goals. I urge the chairman to work with the Department of Defense to clarify this language in conference committee.

Mr. WAXMAN

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

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to point out to the gentleman that we removed the requirement that the gentleman has in his underlying bill to have the Congressional Budget Office analyze the costs. All that the CBO would do would be to identify the provision, and in identifying that provision, it allows a Member to make the point of order for consideration. We do not block any actions, we only ask that they give consideration to that issue. There is no cost that CBO would have to incur in analyzing this provision.

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

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, the point that I am making is that just as it is important to have a focus on an unfunded mandate and a chance for the House to consider it, it is just as important to have the focus on the environmental issue and give the House a chance to debate and vote on it separately. I want the two to be treated equally, and I do not think that they are at odds with each other.

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

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman misunderstands the amendment. The underlying bill requires that we give a focus of attention before we go to mandate something on business, and that makes sense in and of itself, but we are saying before we do something like have an amendment that opens up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge or halts the limitation of a Clean Air Act provision, that we also have a chance to look at that and vote on it separately. Otherwise what I fear is that anti-environmental provisions will be wrapped up in a bill and we will not be able to have a chance to look at it and consider it and then vote on it. Just as I think a lot of people will worry that an unfunded requirement on business would be wrapped up in a bill.

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

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman obviously is against the bill. If someone supports this bill, because they think it makes sense to have a point of order and a focus and a debate and then a vote before we put a mandate on a private business, I think, for the same arguments, it is important to have a point of order, an opportunity for a debate and a vote when it comes to an environmental issue, especially if we are going to have something snuck into a bill that would remove some environmental protection. So on the same logic for those who support the bill, for education, for an opportunity to have some sunshine about what we are to do and clear deliberation before we do it, I think we ought to have this amendment. It is consistent with the bill. Whether one is against the bill, but also for those for the bill, I think this amendment goes well with this legislation.

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

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, the environment is just as important to the American people as unfunded mandates. The environment is just as important for special procedural attention as new requirements that raise taxes or otherwise place mandates on the private sector. Let us pass this amendment and ensure Congress thinks before repealing critical public health and environmental protections. Mr. Chairman, I ask for an affirmative vote for this amendment.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment we call the ``Defense of the Environment Amendment.'' It is based on the bill H.R. 1404, which is supported by every major environmental group and the AFL/CIO. It has been cosponsored by nearly 100 members. Proponents of the underlying bill, H.R. 3534, have claimed that sometimes Congress does not sufficiently deliberate before enacting legislation. They say that sometimes an issue is so important that we need an extra procedural step. This procedural step or ``point of order'' allows any Member who identifies one of these important issues to immediately stop action here on the floor of the House of Representatives and call for a brief debate and then a vote. The amendment I am offering is about an issue that I think deserves special procedural attention every bit as much as those singled out in this legislation and in previous legislation that we have adopted. Two years ago, we adopted this kind of procedure when it came to imposing an unfunded mandate on State, local, and tribal governments. The bill before us would expand the application of these procedural protections to requirements on the private sector. The ``Defense of the Environment Amendment'' would build on this legislation to offer special protection to issues of great importance to the American people, requirements established to protect public health, safety and the environment. This amendment would help guard against Congress repealing current environmental and public health protections without adequate consideration. Over the years, we have seen that when Congress legislates in a deliberate, collegial, bipartisan fashion, we are able to enact public health and environmental laws that work well and are supported by environmental groups and by the business community. However, sometimes the democratic, small ``d,'' democratic process is obstructed and anti-environmental riders are attached to Appropriations bills or other ``must-pass'' pieces of legislation. Often this happens with absolutely no debate or consideration by the Committee of jurisdiction. These anti-environmental riders, some of which have become law, have increased clear-cut logging in our National Forests, crippled protection of endangered species, stalled the Superfund program, backslid on energy efficiency standards and blocked the regulation of radioactive contaminants in drinking water. Those are some of the examples of riders that passed. Now let me give you some examples of riders that were attached to legislation that were later taken out. They were not made into law, but, nevertheless, we did not get a special opportunity to deliberate clearly and understand that we were going to reduce protection of the environment. We have had riders that would have opened up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling, without a chance for a separate vote. We have had a rider that prohibited the regulation of arsenic in drinking water without a separate vote. We have had riders that halted implementation of the Clean Air Act's operating permit program without a separate vote and terminated the environmental enforcement attorneys at the Department of Justice, with no special focus on this issue. We have had riders that exempted oil refineries and cement kilns from air toxic standards and exempted specific polluters from environmental laws, such as a rider that would have exempted an industrial facility in Kalamazoo, Michigan, from Federal water pollution control requirements, again without a separate opportunity to examine that issue. What I am offering by way of an amendment to this bill is a procedure that is designed to shine light on these stealth attacks on our environmental laws. This amendment would not prohibit Congress from repealing or amending any environmental law, but would simply allow a debate and a vote before Congress acts. That is what the underlying bill does for new mandates on private enterprise, just as previous legislation called for this special sunshine for provisions that would mandate additional requirements on State, local, and tribal governments.

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

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I understand the distinction the gentleman is making, but if we imposed a tax on tobacco and wanted to use that money to help pay for Medicare, we would not have the opportunity to have a focus on that new tax increase. If we had that tax on tobacco and wanted to give a tax break to growers of corn, then we would say, whoa, wait a minute, we are going to take a special look at that tax on tobacco. That just, to me, does not make a lot of sense.

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

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I was trying to understand the point that you were making. You said that the budget rules require that there be a tax increase in order for there to be a tax decrease. The budget rules also require that there be some kind of spending if there were going to be an increase in the amount for entitlements like Social Security or Medicare. So what I do not understand is why, when we put a tax burden on a small business in order to raise money, that is not considered unfunded mandate in order to get some attention here in the House if the money taken from that small business is used to give, maybe, a big business a tax break, but it is considered unfunded mandate if you ask that businessman to pay more taxes and we use it to help Social Security or Medicare. I do not understand why that distinction should hold. If it is a burden on a business, then we ought to stop and take a look at it. Which is the purpose of the underlying bill?

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

Mr. WAXMAN. I am perplexed by my friend from California's statement as well. As I understand the underlying bill, it does not stop the Congress from doing anything. It just simply says, wait a minute, we want to take a look at this. And if we are going to put a burden on private enterprise, we want to have a special focus on that and make people have to debate it and vote on it. If we are going to put a tax increase on some business, that seems to me a sufficient burden that we are putting on them that we ought to stop and be sure that that is what we want to do. As I understand the Dreier amendment, which the Moakley amendment would strike, it would have us ignore what the burden is on a private business, a small business, particularly, if there is a tax break for someone else. Modification to Amendment Offered by Mr. Moakley

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

Mr. WAXMAN. It is still a mandate on the company that has the tax burden. On the other hand, as I understand the Dreier amendment, if we put a tax burden on one enterprise in order to spend the money on some worthwhile purpose, as the Congress sees fit, then that would be an unfunded mandate and require the operation of the underlying bill.