Henry Waxman

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, 2 years ago Congress adopted procedural steps that ensured that unfunded mandates and tax increases could not be enacted unless specifically considered and approved by the House. Today I am introducing the Defense of the Environment Act of 1997 with Representative Gephardt and Representative Miller of California. This legislation would extend this same protection to environmental policies. The Defense of the Environment Act is a commonsense safeguard that could dramatically improve the consideration of environmental legislation at virtually no cost. Nothing in the Act would prevent Congress from weakening or eliminating any existing environmental protection, even though a December 1996 Roper poll indicates that only 19 percent of our constituents favor rolling back environmental policies. Instead, the Act only takes the modest step of requiring a brief time for debate and a vote on any weakening legislation. This is a practical measure which will simply ensure that environmental legislation receives adequate consideration before becoming law. I encourage my colleagues to consider the Defense of the Environment Act. I believe it is one environmental bill that we can all agree on.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. The Senate voted unanimously to investigate the Congress and the White House. I think we ought to do the same. There ought to be Democrats and Republicans. If we are only going to investigate the White House, it seems to me that the opens this up to the fact that we are covering up what goes on in the Congress.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule. In walking over here to speak on this matter, I wondered what the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich] would have said when he was in the minority if a Democratic majority brought a committee funding bill to the floor under a closed rule, meaning no amendments allowed, a bill that provided a record funding level, $12 million, for one committee and created a mysterious $8 million reserve fund that was controlled by the majority; a bill that provides this funding, even though the money will be used exclusively to investigate the minority and the chairman will unilaterally issue subpoenas and release documents, even confidential information, as he sees fit. And that bill provided at most 25 percent of the committee's resources to the minority? Mr. Speaker, Newt Gingrich would have said that it was an arrogant abuse of power, that debate was quashed, that the funding was an outrageous waste of money, taxpayers' dollars, he would have said it was an act of war against the minority, and he would have been right. No matter what other wrongs we may have done when we were in the majority, we never went this far. Today, the Republican majority is crossing the line. They are trying to jam a funding bill through without any opportunity for an amendment, and they are authorizing an investigation that is limited to Democrats, limited to the White House, that is unwilling, at least at this point, to even examine what campaign finance abuses took place by the Congress of the United States. That cannot be interpreted as anything other than a coverup. This bill would allow this investigation to be conducted under the rules that the chairman of the committee seeks to impose, which is he could act unilaterally. He can issue subpoenas everywhere. He can compel information to be submitted to him, which is a very serious matter. It involves people spending money, hiring lawyers, getting the information together at expense to them and facing criminal penalties if they do not comply. And this investigation, as the chairman of the committee would envision it, would allow him to take that information and release it as he sees fit, even if it involved national security. This is a concentration of power that has never been given to any chairman anywhere. And as far as the funding is concerned, the majority would take 75 percent, leaving the minority with less, around 25 percent at best. This is blatantly partisan and egregiously unfair. It poisons what should be a bipartisan effort to investigate all fund-raising abuses and reform the system. It is wrong, and I appeal to my Republican colleagues to say no to this outrageous travesty. There is an easy and obvious solution. Fund all the other committees except the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. We have not even had a meeting of our committee to decide the rules under which this investigation will be conducted. We do not even know the scope yet except what the chairman would have us believe is the scope that he would want for this investigation. Fund the other committees, and allow us to not have a disruption of them, and then leave the investigation by the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight to be decided later. Defeat this rule.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I checked with the House Parliamentarian on this very issue, and he assured me that our committee does have jurisdiction, Government Reform and Oversight Committee, over all campaign finance issues. We need not be restricted only to the White House unless it is being done for partisan reasons.

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

Mr. WAXMAN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, David Kessler represents the best in public service. He did his job with one purpose: to protect and promote the public health. He did so with unmatched passion, intensity, and courage. Dr. Kessler understood that the Food and Drug Administration is a scientific agency and that politics have no place in the agency's decisions. David Kessler would also be the first to tell you that he could not have accomplished anything without the hard work and dedication of his colleagues at the Food and Drug Administration. Those accomplishments are significant and are making real differences today in the health and safety of Americans. We now have food labels that give us meaningful information we can use to improve our diets. The agency is approving new medicines at a rate that was unimaginable when he came to the agency in 1990. Today, we are protecting our children against the terrible scourge of the diseases brought on by tobacco use. Dr. Kessler has set the standard for excellence and accomplishment in government. Thank you, David Kessler, for your public service.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the distinguished career of Beverly Hills City Councilmember Allan Alexander, who is retiring after many years of public service. Councilmember Alexander served as mayor of Beverly Hills for two terms and has been a vital member of the city council since 1988. His interest in community and devotion to public service can be traced as far back as his childhood in the small agricultural town of Watsonville in Northern California. Councilmember Alexander practiced law for 28 years prior to his election to the city council. During that time he affirmed his commitment to public service as president and director of Public Counsel, the largest pro bono law firm in the nation. As a councilmember, Mr. Alexander continued to participate in local organizations, believing that one must be an active participant both at the community level and beyond its borders. He served as an officer and director of the Economic Resources Corp., which is working to redevelop South Central Los Angeles, and as director and president of the SOS Exceptional Youth Foundation, which provides schools for mentally challenged and delinquent children. Councilmember Alexander made additional important contributions through his exemplary leadership in a variety of other organizations. He sat on the City Planning Commission, serving as its chair from 1986 to 1987, as founding president and director of the Southwest Beverly Hills Homeowners Association, and as a member of the Beverly Hills Chamber of Commerce and Civic Association. While on the council, Councilmember Alexander worked to develop transportation and traffic programs, and he encouraged the creation of traffic management plans to divert traffic away from residential streets. He championed numerous causes of special importance to the city such as crime prevention, emergency preparedness, support for the Beverly Hills school system and historical preservation. The residents of Beverly Hills owe a great debt of gratitude to Allan Alexander for his exceptional record of service and achievement. I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Councilmember Alexander for his long and successful career in public service and in wishing him, his wife Joan, and their three sons great happiness and success in the future.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Berman and I are honored today to pay tribute to two of our dearest friends--Betty and Larry Fisher--for whom political activism is an abiding passion and a participatory sport. Betty and Larry are model good citizens, who have for decades offered freely of their time and every resource to advance the many good causes they have espoused. Betty began her political career in the early 1960's, coordinating major events for Senators Hubert Humphrey and Ted Kennedy. She has been at it ever since. Among the positions in which she has served are Business Manager for the Robert Kennedy for President Campaign Committee; member of the Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission and, from 1991-95, Chief of Staff for Los Angeles City Councilwoman Ruth Galanter. Larry has combined an extensive political background with a highly successful and distinguished business career. As chairman of Braun Ketchum, Los Angeles, Larry provided guidance to many of the country's most influential corporations, including Transamerica Occidental Life, GTE, and Great Western Financial. He also made time to serve as Executive Director of the California Democratic Party and continues to be heavily involved in political activities. Larry is also a guiding force in community service. He is a trustee of the Norris Cancer Institute and Research Center, a director of the Shelter Partnership and a member of both the World Affairs Council and the Public Relations Society of America. Among the most impressive thing about Larry and Betty Fisher is that their marriage has thrived in spite of the fact that he graduated from USC and she from UCLA. Indeed, we both cut our political teeth working alongside Betty in Young Democrats at UCLA. Larry and Betty's enormous political skill enabled them to survive even this intense interscholastic rivalry. Seriously, Betty and Larry are among the world's most delightful human beings. They are charming, intelligent, and just great fun. We ask our colleagues to join us today in saluting Betty and Larry Fisher, whose friendship and wisdom have been of the greatest value to us over the years. Their sense of commitment and dedication to making this a better world is an inspiration to us all. They are moving to a neighborhood some distance from us, and we will miss seeing them often. We send them off, however, with our greatest affection and wishes of continued happiness and success.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the extraordinary career of Los Angeles City Councilman Marvin Braude. After 32 years of dedicated service, Councilman Braude will soon return to private life. The city's 11th district, which he has so capably served, overlaps my own district, and includes communities such as Pacific Palisades, Brentwood, and West Los Angeles. During his eight terms in office, Councilman Braude has been a champion of the environment, a crusader for government efficiency, and a source of wisdom in the development of local public policy. As an elected official, he has been a true renaissance man, at various times in his career serving as chair of the city's Finance and Revenue Committee, the Environmental Quality and Waste Management Committee, and the Public Safety Committee. He has also helped formulate city policy in information technology, public works, and zoning, and land use issues. A lifelong conservationist and ardent bicyclist, Councilman Braude's leadership made possible the creation of a 50,000-acre public park within the city's limits in the Santa Monica Mountains. This area has been designated as permanent recreational open space and is a beautiful natural oasis within the city's borders. Councilman Braude's legislative accomplishments have included authorship of the city's pioneering ordinances to protect nonsmokers from secondhand tobacco smoke. He has been honored for his work by the American Cancer Society, the American Lung Association, the League of California Cities, and the California Department of Health Services. Councilman Braude has also had extraordinary success in sponsoring ballot measures to limit commercial density and to prohibit oil drilling along the city's pristine beaches. In addition, he has been the city council's leader in opening city government to the public and encouraging the participation of all citizens. And, he increased government accountability by creating the zero-based budgeting process that is now used as a management model by many municipalities. Councilman Braude's commitment to the environment includes serving on the governing board of the South Coast Air Quality Management District, helping to clean the air for 12,000,000 people in southern California. he is also the city's strongest advocate of electric vehicle technology and is helping to bring the entire automotive industry into the future by making the city of Los Angeles a friendly environment for electric vehicles. Like many of our colleagues, Councilman Braude came to government from the private sector. he founded Capital for Small Business in Los Angeles, and was a founding member of the board of directors of Scientific Data Systems, which later became the computer division of Xerox Corp. Mr. Speaker, I ask you and my colleagues to join me in honoring Councilman Braude for his full and fruitful career in public service, and in wishing him continued happiness and success in all future endeavors.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, as chairman and CEO of Kaiser Foundation Health Plan and Hospitals, David M. Lawrence, M.D., has helped reshape the delivery of health care in this country. During Dr. Lawrence's tenure as CEO for the past 5 years, he has reaffirmed Kaiser Permanente's 50-year commitment to serving the community as a nonprofit health care system. As a result of Dr. Lawrence's leadership, Kaiser Permanente continues to serve as a national example of delivering high- quality health care that is affordable to all American families. In addition, Dr. Lawrence has committed Kaiser Permanente resources to funding landmark research that has resulted in a new national vaccine for immunizing children, new standards for detecting cancer, and better practices for delivering healthier babies. Under Dr. Lawrence's guidance, his organization has contributed millions of dollars to the health and safety of children around the country. Through educational theater programs, grants to local hospitals, and operation of the Watts Learning Center, Kaiser Permanente stands as an example of community responsibility and integrity. On this occasion of Dr. Lawrence's fifth- year anniversary, we extend our regards and congratulations.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, Los Angeles County has designated the week of February 24, 1997 as ``Childhood Cancer Awareness Week.'' In honor of this proclaimation, I ask my colleagues to join me in calling attention to the tragedy of childhood cancer and in working to to defeat this debilitating enemy of our children. Cancer is the leading cause of death in the United States today. Each year, approximately 10,000 American children are diagnosed with cancer. Moreover, it is the leading cause of death by disease among children in our country. While great strides are made each year in research, treatment, and prevention of childhood cancer, we must remain vigilant in our efforts to search for cures and more effective treatments. I ask my colleagues to reaffirm their dedication to eliminating childhood cancer and to take a moment to express their appreciation to the devoted individuals working in the fight against this dreaded disease.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Arthur H. Bilger for his great contributions to the nonprofit House of Justice of Bet Tzedek Legal Services of Los Angeles. Bet Tzedek Legal Services is one of the leading poverty law centers in the country. Thousands of indigent, elderly, and disabled individuals benefit each year from the free legal services provided at Bet Tzedek's headquarters in the Fairfax District of Los Angeles, the Valley Rights project in North Hollywood, and the 32 senior centers throughout the Los Angeles area. Bet Tzedek is open to all who pass through its doors and even makes house calls to the ill and frail. Its services are vital and they are not otherwise readily available to those who need them. Arthur H. Bilger has been a constant believer in Bet Tzedek's mission to be a place of refuge and assistance to Los Angeles' most needy residents. As one of the most dedicated and successful fundraisers for Bet Tzedek, his efforts have allowed this generous organization to continue to operate at full capacity while maintaining its promise of services at no cost to its clientele. We owe Arthur H. Bilger a debt of gratitude for his vision, his devotion, and his support of this most worthy cause. I am delighted to bring Mr. Bilger's tireless and selfless work on behalf of Bet Tzedek Legal Services to the attention of my colleagues and ask you to join me saluting him for his many important contributions.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I urge an ``aye'' vote on this proposal, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill, S. 1044, which reaffirms our support for the Community and Migrant Health Centers programs and for those programs that provide health care for the homeless and people living in public housing. These are essential programs for unfortunately millions of Americans who have nowhere else to go for their health care needs. I have a longer statement which I will put into the Record talking about the Community and Migrant Health Centers and the kinds of things that they do. I cannot imagine any controversy with this legislation. Whatever differences we might have on health care policy, we are united in agreeing that we ought to have funding for those clinics that provide health care for some of our neediest citizens and residents in this Nation. Mr. Speaker, S. 1044 reaffirms our support for Community and Migrant Health Centers and for programs that provide health care for the homeless and for people who live in public housing. These excellent programs provide health care for millions of people who otherwise would have no access to care. Today, health centers provide care in more than 2,200 communities across the country, to more than 8 million people whose lives literally depend on this care. Health centers provide high quality primary health care to the most vulnerable in our society: Struggling young families; poor children; and elderly people whose incomes or location close them off from other avenues to good, caring medical services. And health centers do this at incredibly low cost. They are not, and cannot be, the whole solution to our country's continuing need for affordable, quality health care for every American. However, they are doing a terrific job of filling a large and increasing need to care for the uninsured, the poor, and the geographically and medically isolated. They do this in every State in the United States. This legislation recognizes the need to revise and modernize the authorities for the health centers programs. It adopts the administration's proposals to consolidate and simplify the process for awarding grants and operating the programs. The new single authority and consolidated funding will include all programs, whether community or migrant health centers or health care for the homeless or residents of public housing. I am pleased that S. 1044 maintains a focus on special populations and makes clear that the health centers programs must continue to meet the unique needs of homeless people, migrant farm workers, and others. S. 1044 also authorizes a new loan guarantee program, to enable health centers to form or join integrated service networks, but at the same time retain their mission to provide high-quality care and a broad range of services to medically underserved people. To participate in such plans, health centers often are required to have capital in reserve, as well as to pay for costs associated with development of networks. The difficulty of obtaining capital has prevented many health centers from changing to accord with changes in the health care system. Over the last several years, a few health centers have received small demonstration project grants to begin network development activity. The General Accounting Office has evaluated this program and identified lack of capital as a significant problem. Some health centers have learned, for example, that investors may be willing to provide the needed capital, but only if the center relinquishes its autonomy and control. This could greatly disadvantage patients, who potentially could be placed at risk of not being able to receive the care and services the centers must provide. The loan guarantee program of S. 1044 addresses this problem carefully. The program is subject to appropriations and to the Credit Reform Act, and loan origination fees are deposited in a special fund for this purpose. Thus, no loans would be guaranteed by the Government unless funds are available to cover the potential cost. The Subcommittee on Health and Environment held a hearing on health centers' programs, and we heard about the need for this reauthorization and for the loan guarantee program. We also heard about the importance, in any consolidation effort, of maintaining a focus on the special populations now served in separate facilities and programs. S. 1044 accomplishes these goals. Today, health centers are integral parts of communities they serve. Community participation in the policies and programs of the centers is an essential component of their operation. This legislation will ensure that continued involvement, and will also assist health centers to modernize their operations and their service delivery so they can be even more efficient and effective as the American health care system moves into the next century. Mr. Speaker, this is good legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I want to point out a couple of important health consequences from this bill. In the welfare bill we excluded legal aliens from health care but we left those who are already patients to be covered under Medicaid. They are now excluded. Second, we exclude any legal alien from any Medicaid services whatsoever. That is going to put a burden on the counties and the States and on the hospitals and on people who pay for private insurance when that insurance goes up, because a lot of people are still going to get care, but their care is going to have to be paid for by someone else. On the AIDS issue, what we are doing is really a disastrous policy. This bill provides that all people can be tested but they cannot get care. Why would anybody want to come to know whether they are HIV positive if they cannot then get any medical care to assist them? They will rather be ignorant about it and spread the disease. For those of us who call ourselves pro-life, understand that this bill would allow a pregnant women to be tested; but when she is determined to be HIV positive, she will not be allowed to have the Government pay for her AZT to stop the transmission of HIV, which is successful under this treatment to two-thirds of those children. We will condemn babies to getting AIDS when it could have been prevented. That, to me, is antilife and nonsensical, and this bill smacks of a lot of injustices that have not been thought through. I want to point this out to Members as another reason to vote against a very unjust bill.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar].

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to thank the gentleman from California for his kind statements. I think the Corrections Day Calendar has worked well for the most part. It can work well. We always have to be vigilant it is not used for improper purposes. Under the leadership of our chairman, the gentlewoman from Nevada, Barbara Vucanovich, who has been exceedingly fair, I think the committee has lived up to the representations of those who called for it claimed and those of us who were wary and skeptical have been proved wrong. I thank the gentleman for his statements in support of this legislation as well. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. I appreciate what the gentleman is saying, and that is a correction, but the point I would still make is we looked at it with our majority and minority staff on the Committee on Commerce. We talked about ways to make this legislation work. We did not feel a hearing would be particularly productive because I do not know what anybody would have to say about the idea that a community should be able to synchronize their traffic signals. But I respect the fact the gentleman feels there should have been a jurisdictional claim, and in exercising his jurisdiction he might have held a hearing and might not have. But I would hope now we will pass this bill forward to the other body. I hope it becomes law. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this bill and I want to commend my colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. McKeon] for bringing this issue to us. It came first to the Corrections Day Advisory Committee because this really is a genuine proposal to correct an anomaly in the law. That anomaly is if the local governments want to synchronize the signals so that passengers do not have to stop every block or so, there seems to be a question of whether they might be in violation of the clean air law. We discussed this in the context of how to make the proposal work and not have unintended consequences, as far as we knew anyway, and I think we have a good proposal. It reflects a compromise that we developed with the gentleman from California [Mr. McKeon], and I thank him for bringing this matter to our attention. This bill will allow communities to synchronize their traffic lights without needless delay. Under the Clean Air Act, before a transportation project can go forward the project must be determined to be in conformity with State or Federal implementation plans. Because many jurisdictions make conformity determinations only once a year, projects can be delayed while awaiting a conformity determination. This bill will allow traffic light synchronization projects to go forward without first undergoing a conformity determination. Then the project's effects on air pollution can be fully considered when the next conformity determinations are made. This is a narrow but important issue, and it is notable as well for the process with which it was crafted. Representative McKeon first brought this bill before the Corrections Day Advisory Group this spring. We engaged in collegial discussions and have been able to craft a bill that works toward the goals of the Clean Air Act, but gives local governments the flexibility they feel they need. In my view, this is a model way to protect and improve our environmental laws. Earlier in this Congress, some proposed wholesale repeals of even our most successful environmental laws--all in the name of increasing flexibility. This bill is an example of how we can address desires for flexibility while maintaining the integrity of our environmental laws. This marks the second time we have amended the Clean Air Act through the corrections process. Earlier this year, we passed a bill which gave States greater flexibility in implementing the Clean Air Act's employee trip reduction requirements. That bill has now become law. This bill should become law as well. I urge your support for H.R. 2988 and again want to recognize Representative McKeon for his outstanding efforts on this legislation. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. I think we have a good example of why the Corrections Day Calendar was needed. Here we have a commonsense proposal by the Representative from California, Mr. McKeon, to say that, if a local government wants to synchronize their traffic signals, they should be able to do it. The question that we had before us is whether that is going to interfere with environmental standards under the Clean Air Act. Our committee, which is the primary committee on the Clean Air Act, I looked at that issue and made sure we are not going to add to pollution. That was really not a factor. If it added to air pollution, it would be considered later. That is why this thing has been worked out, and now this bill is being presented to the full House for consideration on the Corrections Day Calendar. The argument by my good friends and colleagues, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri] and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar] was they should have had jurisdiction. They should have been able to look at this bill. They should have considered it within a couple of years of hearings. Well, how many years of hearings do we need on the idea that cities and communities ought to be able to synchronize their traffic signals? Why should this be held up for a long period of time? I think the idea of the Corrections Day Calendar was not to let committee jurisdictions become an impediment for doing something that is sensible. Now, if the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure should have had jurisdiction, they should have gone to the Speaker and said: Refer this bill to us. You referred it to Commerce. We think we have jurisdiction, refer it to us as well. Presumably they did. If they did not, they should have. But if they did and the Speaker looked at it and said this is something that has been reviewed sufficiently, and it is his decision to end it to the House floor, it is now before us. Madam Speaker, I do not think we ought to let jurisdictional concerns hold up a commonsense proposal that has been reviewed by the committee that has primary, maybe exclusive jurisdiction over the Clean Air Act. I respect the fact that the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has areas of the law that might also impact on this. That issue should have been taken up with the Speaker. But I would hope we would not hold up something interminably that is so small and makes so much sense.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I would like to be heard on the point of order before the Speaker rules on the point of order.

Mr. WAXMAN. I guess that is it: The sentence first, and then we will have the trial later.