Henry Waxman

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. I do, Madam Speaker.

Mr. WAXMAN. As I understand it, Madam Speaker, the House of Representatives has spent around half a million, maybe more, to ask for a report to be submitted to our committees. Why can that not be made public, and why is that inappropriate to say on the House floor?

Mr. WAXMAN. Further parliamentary inquiry, Madam Speaker.

Mr. WAXMAN. There is a ruling that we as Members of the House of Representatives may not speak in protest over the committee's refusal to make this report public?

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, if I can reclaim my time, I would mention to the gentlewoman and others that the so-called Committee on Government Reform and Oversight has been issuing reports scathingly attacking the administration without any evidence. They keep on saying, ``The report says that,'' and that is their justification for their accusations, both on the Travel Office, and they are going to try to do something on the FBI files, a very, very partisan hatchet job. Those reports are being issued without evidence, but a report that we have paid for with taxpayers' money we are not allowed to see, and the public is being kept from having those reports available to us.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding me some time so I could speak in favor of the motion to instruct the conferees. Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity to remedy a serious mistake this House made when we failed to act to assure parity of treatment for mental health care benefits in earlier legislation. There is simply no excuse for the continued discrimination against people with mental health problems. The Republican majority refused to allow the inclusion of the Domenici-Wellstone compromise in the conference agreement on the Kennedy-Kassebaum health insurance portability bill. It was wrong then, and it would be compounding the error to refuse it again. The losers because of our failure to act are the American people. It is every person and every family who has known the tragedy of struggling with mental illness and having no adequate insurance coverage for the services needed to treat it. The proposal before us is a modified one that only assures parity for mental health benefits in terms of annual and lifetime limits on benefits. It is affordable, it is necessary, it is right. We cannot say no again to taking this vital, important step. Let us send a clear and strong message to our conferees to adopt this provision and bring some fairness and sense to our treatment of mental health benefits. I hope that all Members will instruct the conferees to go along with this provision, and that the conferees come back with a recommendation to use this opportunity to put in these provisions, to move down the track to assuring what ought to be complete parity between mental and physical health insurance coverage.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Is it not true that the Senate receded to the House to provide for the 75-percent funding and then the gentleman from Pennsylvania objected?

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I only want to correct the record. The environmental groups that had supported this legislation have withdrawn their support because they know this law will not work unless we have an appropriation for that revolving fund.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to set the record straight about the delay on this conference report. The deadline for approving the fund was July 31. We did not get the conference report papers until August 1. The gentleman from New York indicated that the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] and I might have been responsible for that. It was the mangers of this legislation. The last point I want to make is the House voted unanimously for one position. That was to keep these pork projects out of that revolving fund and let them stand in line later if they can claim on the merits that they should be funded, and that position was rejected.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is absolutely incorrect. Maybe it is better to be on the offensive rather than the defensive, but the gentleman is being offensive when he incorrectly states the circumstances. The House voted unanimously to insist that his project do not get funded until 75 percent of the revolving fund is appropriated. That was disregarded and it means that we have no revolving fund to make the drinking water law work. I regret it and I think that we should unfortunately vote against this bill.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, before I focus on my substantive concerns with S. 1316, I want to recognize some of the Members and staff who have made invaluable contributions to this legislation: Congressmen Jim Saxton, Sherwood Boehlert, and Frank Pallone deserve our thanks for their efforts on the right-to-know provision and Nita Lowey, Bart Stupak, and Sherrod Brown must be commended for their committed advocacy for the bill's estrogenic screening program. I also want to thank the House Democratic staff, Dick Frandsen and Bill Tyndall, Greg Dotson and Phil Schiliro for their work on this legislation. In many respects, this is a good bill and one we should be proud to support. We worked hard on a bipartisan basis to resolve difficult issues. It was clear to me that both houses and both parties were committed to passing strong and balanced legislation. But I cannot support the conference report that is before us today. I will vote no for two reasons: First, the State revolving fund, which is one of the most important provisions in this legislation, has just lost over $700 million in guaranteed funding because Congress missed the July 31 deadline. This is only half a bill without the SRF, and half a bill will not solve our drinking water problems. There is absolutely no reason why the guaranteed money had to be lost. The second reason I will not support this legislation is that pork projects took priority over protecting the public health and assuring drinking water standards. The reason this bill made sense is that we took the recommendation of President Clinton to have a revolving fund that would provide money to the water systems in this country to use to make the capital expenditures so they could have drinking water that would meet health standards. That was the carrot. The stick in this legislation was if they did not do the things that were necessary, funds would be withheld from those water systems. The bill made sense. The revolving fund was supposed to be distributed based on priorities and merit to those systems that needed those funds. That was the legislation that came out of our Committee on Commerce. The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure decided that they wanted $50 million for special projects to be earmarked to receive their money, whether they deserved it or not. When the House bill passed, we incorporated a feature saying maybe some of these pork projects are inevitable. But let us be assured that the revolving fund is appropriated, at least 75 percent of it, before we start funding these special pork projects. That was the House position. We had a unanimous vote of the House to support that position. And we went into meetings with the Senate and the Senate agreed with that position in conference. But then the chairman of the Transportation Committee insisted that he have his projects funded before the revolving fund would be funded. He insisted that his projects be funded in advance of the revolving fund. Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership should have taken the opportunity to show some leadership. They should have said if we could not do this before the deadline, let us extend the deadline, as we recommended by the gentleman from Michigan, Congressman Dingell. The Republican leadership would not assert their role. The second thing is that the congressional Republican leadership should have said no to the chairman of the Transportation Committee. You cannot get your pork barrel projects funded without the revolving fund being funded first. And the Republican leadership would not say no to pork. Then the Republican leadership should have said to the Committee on Appropriations, we want to make sure that we are going to safeguard this money for the drinking water fund. And the Republican leadership would not say no. If we are going to deal with the problems of fiscal responsibility in this country, the leadership of this House must say no to pork. And if we are going to deal with the drinking water problems in this Nation and have a revolving fund, the leadership must say that fund will be available. So, Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of sadness that I have to stand here, after having worked so hard on this bill, and to announce that I will vote against this bill. I will vote against it because the bill does not work if the revolving fund is not appropriated. I feel that a miscarriage of fairness has taken place. I will yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster]. I want to point out, before I yield to him, that one of the projects that was earmarked for special consideration was in his district and it was mandated that the Corps of Engineers carry out this project, even though the Corps of engineers said to us they did not think it was a good project.

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

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman does not know what he is talking about.

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

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Today, thanks to the tenacity and moderation of Senator Kennedy and Senator Kassebaum, this House has before it legislation to make some small improvements, but improvements nevertheless, in the health insurance protections available to Americans. Today, we finally provide that people who lose their insurance because they move or lose their job or their employer stops providing coverage, that those people will be assured that they have at least access to health insurance coverage and will not have to face a waiting period for any preexisting condition. That is good and long overdue. Unfortunately, this bill could have been and should have been significantly better. We have failed to seize the opportunity this bill presented to take long overdue and much needed steps to assure parity of treatment of mental health benefits with other health benefits, and that is inexcusable. We had the opportunity in this conference to agree to the bipartisan Domenici-Wellstone amendment, adopted overwhelmingly in the Senate, to end the discriminatory treatment of mental health conditions in insurance plans. This provision had broad and significant support in the House with more than 100 Senators urging us to adopt it. It had significant support among the conferees, yet the Republican Members who controlled the conference would not allow us to meet to discuss this provision. They lacked the courage to let the public see them debate and vote on this issue. The losers are the American people. It is every person and every family who has known the tragedy of struggling with mental illness and having no adequate insurance coverage for the services they needed to treat it. There is simply no place in this country for discrimination against mental health coverage in this day and age. This House should demand that the conference return to the drawing boards and bring back a conference return which includes a mental health parity amendment. The irony here is that while the majority would not let us consider adopting protections for mental health benefits, they had no compunctions at all about adding a multimillion-dollar giveaway for their friends in the drug industry. In the dark of night they added a patent extension for a drug called Lodine. There is no reason to do this, except to help one drug company make more money. And how will they make more money? By having people pay a higher price for that drug by denying a competitor to come on the market. It demonstrates again that no matter how important a bill is for ordinary people, the Republican majority cannot help seeing it as yet another opportunity to take care of a special interest. So what the Republicans did was they snuck this provision in without anyone knowing about it. It was not in the House bill. It was not in the Senate bill. Ordinarily, that would be beyond the scope of the conference, and a point of order could be made against it. But this rule waives that point of order. So when we vote to adopt a rule to consider this bill, many Members might not even realize that they are protecting the special interest giveaway. This is exactly what the American people are so sick of. I also regret that this bill does so little to help people with the problems they have in securing health care coverage. It is important to assure access to insurance for people who have had coverage and lose it. But accessibility without affordability is a small step, indeed. This reform will prove to be a cruel hoax if people find they cannot afford the coverage that they gain access to. Of the 40 million Americans who have no health insurance coverage at all, what help will they get with this bill? Almost none at all. Their needs are unaddressed. They cannot afford insurance. They do not have it at their jobs. They go without health care coverage, and they will still have no health care coverage. They will still have no health care coverage when all is said and done because it will not be available for them even to buy because they did not have it before. I hope my colleagues do not see the adoption of this bill as a reason to brag about their achievements. We should be humbled by the magnitude of what we did not do. For in the end there is only a small downpayment that we get out of this legislation on the kind of action that the American people have a right to expect and receive from the people they elected to this House. Mr. Speaker, I think we should give credit for moving at least to this extent to President Clinton, for having raised the fact that people do not have health insurance, even those who have had a job and want to change it. They are afraid to leave that job for fear health insurance will no longer be provided to them. To the extent that this bill will correct that problem, we should all vote for it and be happy about it. To the extent that after this bill is adopted people will still be uninsured, because insurance was not offered to them or because they could not afford it, it is a disgrace for America to have all those people without the ability to get care when they need it.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the House is considering today the reauthorization of important programs under the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act. These programs address the special concerns and needs of over 3 million Americans affected by developmental disabilities. Conditions such as cerebral palsy, mental retardation, epilepsy, and autism manifest themselves early in life, result in varying degrees of disability, and affect both individuals and families for many years. Serving these people effectively requires cooperation between the Federal Government and States, local communities, and the private sector. The goal is to ensure that affected individuals and their families have access to appropriate services; that programs promote productivity, independence, and appropriate integration into the community; and that affected people and families have an opportunity to participate in program development and implementation. H.R. 3867 extends the authorization of four effective programs that provide for research, training and education, and a variety of social and support services. First, the bill provides for continued assistance to States to support activities of developmental disabilities councils. These activities include the design and promotion of comprehensive, statewide systems that are consumer- and family-oriented, to help developmentally disabled people achieve their maximum productive potential. To qualify for these funds, a State must have established a council which is comprised of at least 50 percent representation from people with developmental disabilities and their families or guardians. The State also must have a comprehensive plan that includes development and operation of programs of training, outreach, prevention, education, and collaboration with a variety of service agencies at the State and local levels. H.R. 3867 also reauthorizes State protection and advocacy programs that are designed and maintained by States to protect the legal and human rights of people with developmental disabilities. Protection and advocacy systems operate based on individual State needs, are independent of any service agency, and perform an essential role in ensuring protection and quality care for vulnerable citizens. Finally, this bill, H.R. 3867, reauthorizes university-affiliated research, education, training, and information dissemination activities; and special research projects of national significance. These programs are designed to develop and apply creative approaches to service delivery and care that are workable and sensitive to special needs; to disseminate information about successful activities; and to provide technical assistance. The goal of all of this research is to enhance the ability of individuals with developmental disabilities to live and work in their communities in the most effective ways. All of the activities under the Developmental Disabilities Act are designed to recognize differing needs within States and communities, and to capitalize on successful ideas and actions that originate at the State or local level. This is a system that is working for people, and H.R. 3867 recognizes that success by reauthorizing the programs without change. These programs deserve our continuing support. H.R. 3867 is supported by a broad spectrum of individuals and organizations whose expertise and work is dedicated to providing the best care and services for individuals with developmental disabilities. An identical bill was passed by the Senate, July 12, by unanimous consent, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill so that it can be signed into law as expeditiously as possible. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, let me clarify for everybody what is involved here. There is a retired FBI agent who has said that he talked to Bernie Nussbaum, the counsel to the President, when he was doing the file for Mr. Livingstone, and he claimed Mr. Nussbaum said that Livingstone was being hired because his mother was a friend of Hillary Clinton's. Bernie Nussbaum denies that. Hillary Clinton denies that. Mr. Speaker, there is no verification by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] of the facts of it. Instead, he has come to the floor and made the assertion that when Mr. Nussbaum denied this and Mr. Kennedy denied this and said that they knew of no connection with Hillary Clinton that they committed perjury. Mr. Speaker, how can you reach the conclusion that when they deny what they know and what they said makes them wrong and somebody else right, unless you are going to take the statement by this FBI agent as fact without any verification? Mr. Speaker, I am inserting in the Record a clear statement from Mr. Nussbaum indicating he never said such a thing and it was not true. Statement of Bernard Nussbaum I never told FBI Agent Sculimbrene, or anyone else, that the First Lady recommended Craig Livingstone for his position in the White House or that the First Lady knew Livingstone's mother. I never knew or heard any such things. In fact, I understand that the First Lady and Livingstone's mother don't know each other. I am mystified and outraged that someone would attribute to me something I never said.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I do not in any way want to impugn the integrity of the gentleman from Pennsylvania for whom I have the greatest respect. He has indicated that there is a discrepancy. The discrepancy is that in the FBI files there was an FBI agent who claimed that he was told by Mr. Nussbaum that the reason Craig Livingstone got this job is because his mother was a friend of Hillary Clinton's. I am putting in the Record a statement from Gloria Livingstone saying she does not know Hillary Clinton. The only time she ever met her was when she decorated a Christmas tree and Hillary Clinton came out and thanked everybody for their help. Mr. Speaker, I have previously included in the Record an unequivocal denial by Mr. Nussbaum, who is willing to come before the committee and make this denial under oath. Mr. Speaker, I think we ought to make clear that when the chairman comes and makes a statement like this, which is quite inflammatory, that it is not an uncontroverted statement by a man who does not know firsthand whether Mr. Nussbaum actually said such a thing or Mrs. Clinton was a friend of Mr. Livingstone's mother. July 25, 1996. Statement of Gloria Livingstone I do not know Hillary Rodham Clinton, I have never met Mrs. Clinton, and I have never spoken with Mrs. Clinton. We are not, and never have been, personal friends. I believe the only occasion I was in the same room as Mrs. Clinton was shortly before Christmas last year, when I had the privilege of helping to decorate the White House Christmas tree. At one point, Mrs. Clinton entered the room and thanked us as a group for our efforts. (Mr. GEJDENSON asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute.)

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

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to point out how outrageous it is that the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], the chairman of the committee, that has been investigating whether there has been an invasion of privacy by the gathering of FBI files would come to the floor and disclose information that he has from FBI files. It seems to me that, if we are talking about protecting people's privacy, it is out of line to come to the floor and use information that has not been verified, presumably from some FBI file, to try to smear the First Lady, Bernard Nussbaum, the counsel, and the Democratic administration. This is a partisan smear. I have information that I am going to insert in the Record that contradicts the statement made by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger]. I want to point out that, when a Member of Congress speaks from the House floor, he is protected. We can say anything we want. No one can file a lawsuit against us. But that does not give us the right to come here and disclose information that ought not to be disclosed. If there is an accusation about people in the White House having gathered FBI files improperly, that accusation appears to be accurate, but there has been no showing that any of that information was ever made public or used for political purposes. But what we have here right now is the use politically of information from the FBI. I include for the Record these statements that contradict what has been alleged on the House floor and to point out to the Members that this kind of activity, it seems to me, is outrageous and is really uncalled for.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me this time. I am astounded to hear the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] talk about a bill that will cut out the safety net under the poor and then say in years to come the poor will ask us to cut capital gains and maybe something will trickle down. We need this motion to instruct. Both the House and the Senate have protections for eligibility standards for Medicaid. Let us make sure they do not drop it. That is what they did in the last conference, and unless we get any assurances to the contrary, let us instruct our conferees to hold to the provisions that protect the rights of children at least to get health care, which is both in the House and the Senate bill.

Mr. WAXMAN

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, in closing I want to point out that what we are doing here today is what the American people expect of us, to work out compromises, not to go to any extreme but to look for a middle ground. I want to particularly thank the chairman of our committee, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], for this leadership, and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis], as the chairman of the subcommittee. We do have on occasion, a difference of opinion. We have a different starting point as we look at the role of government; but they were good enough to look at this as a practical matter, to try to think through how we could make a constructive proposal work so that we could get an idea passed into law. I want to thank all the staff of our committee, Howard Cohen, Eric Berger, Kay Holcombe; Greg Dotson, and Phil Schilirop; and the people in the administration, as well, Lynn Goldman, Jim Aidala, Larry Elsworth, Bill Schultz, and Phil Barnett. I would point out that President Clinton put this issue on the agenda when he proposed that we do something on this very matter. The bill we are sending to the Senate and then hopefully on to him in many ways tracks what he proposed and in many ways improves and changes it. Mr. Speaker, we have a good bill. It is a good compromise. The American people should look upon this with favor. I ask our colleagues, as well, to give their support to it. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me add my commendation to all of the staffs from the committees, including the hard work done by the members' staff of the Agriculture Committee. Mr. Speaker, when I became a subcommittee chairman three decades ago, the first major bill that was referred to our subcommittee was FIFRA. I did not know what the word stood for at that time, and I have worked with FIFRA since then. As Members know, I will not be returning the next session of Congress, and I think probably with this unanimity and all this good will, that it may well be the crown of my retirement that we hopefully go through the Senate and finish with a FIFRA bill as I leave this Congress. We worked diligently. There have been many, many long hours of hard work. There have been discussions, heated and otherwise, but to arrive at this point on a suspension calendar is something worthy to be remembered. It is historic, and I am so proud to have been a small part of this endeavor. It will be something that I can go home with and point to with pride. With that, I ask all of the Members to give us their support and their vote on this legislation.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Towns].