let me make a couple of quick comments. The initial request that came from HCFA for the $16 million supplemental did not include anything dealing with mental parity; not a word, not a letter, nothing. It didn't include it. The GAO report didn't include it. A couple of reasons. Here are the mental parity regulations. If I may have the attention of my colleague from Minnesota for a second. This is a copy of the regs that came in on mental health. Guess when they were announced. December 16, 1997, which was about 3 months ago. How in the world can somebody know 30 States aren't complying? The regs just came out. I heard comments that some States aren't complying with the newborns regulations, the 48 hours. Guess what. Those regs aren't out. The law became effective January 1, and there are no regulations. Yet they want to hire an army of new federal employees. HCFA didn't ask for an army of people to go out and comply with these regulations.
Don Nickles: “let me make a couple of quick comments. The initial request that came from HCFA for the $16 million supplemental did not…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing mental health parity regulations and federal compliance during a House floor debate.
Share
More from Don Nickles
I think for tax simplicity, you should allow every business to be able to expense certainly its wages.
I congratulate Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus for the way they have managed this bill. They have conducted their work in a very appropriate way. They had hearings on this bill. I want to compliment Ambassador Zoellick. Our trade…
I do not defend 199, period. I think Congress--when you are rewriting the tax code, you should have a uniform corporate rate, not a lower rate for manufacturing.
law makers must carefully distinguish between the need for tax credits which may operate as subsidies, compared to more favored tax deductions which are expensed as part of ordinary business operations.





