Congressional Record, Volume 141 Issue 64 (Thursday, April 6, 1995)

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 64 (Thursday, April 6, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H4366-H4374]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 483, MEDICARE SELECT EXPANSION

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 130 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 130

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule
XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 483) to amend title XVIII of the Social
Security Act to permit medicare select policies to
be offered in all States, and for other purposes. The first
reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of
order against consideration of the bill are waived.
General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not
exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Commerce. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. In
lieu of any committee amendment it shall be in order to
consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment
under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a
substitute consisting of the text of H.R. 1391. That
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be
considered as read. No amendment to that amendment in the
nature of a substitute shall be in order except one
further amendment in the nature of a substitute which may
be offered only by Representative Dingell of Michigan or
his designee, shall be considered as read, shall be
debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by
the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to
amendment. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill
for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill
to the House with such amendment as may have been adopted.
Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any
amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the
bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute
made in order as original text. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the bill and any
amendment thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Sec. 2. Subject to clause 2(l)(5) of rule XI, the Committee
on Commerce may file a report to the House on H.R. 483 at any
time.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Pryce] is
recognized for 1 hour.

amendment offered by Ms. Pryce

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that House Resolution
130 be amended on page 2, line 3, by inserting after ``bill'' the words
``for failure to comply with clause (2)(1)(6) of rule XI.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Ohio?
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I would like
to know exactly what the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Pryce] is doing at
the present time.
Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MOAKLEY. Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the
gentlewoman from Ohio.
Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, the words proposed to be inserted were
inadvertently deleted from the text of the rule, even though it is
clear from the motion made in committee that those included words were
to be reported.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman has a very lucid
explanation, and I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The resolution is amended.
Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley],
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purposes of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, time is of the essence. That is the basic principle
underlying our consideration of this legislation today.
In 1990, Congress created the Medicare Select Program to allow
Medicare recipients the option of purchasing a MediGap managed care
option. This 15-State demonstration project is set to expire on June
30, a date that is not so far away when you consider that we are about
to begin a 3-week district work period. Unless Congress takes prompt
action to renew this program, the insurance benefits of nearly half a
million senior citizens covered by the Medicare Select Program would be
in jeopardy.
Failure to extend the program's authority would most likely lead to
higher premiums for current enrollees, presenting a new burden for
senior citizens who live on fixed incomes.
The legislation before us, crafted by the distinguished gentlewoman
from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson], expands this option now being tried
successfully in 15 States to seniors in all 50 States, extends the
program for a minimum of 5 additional years, and puts it on track to
becoming permanent if the Secretary of Health and Human Services
certifies that certain conditions have been met.
In order to expedite consideration of this bill in the House, and to
ensure that the Senate, will have ample time to debate this issue, the
Committee on Rules has reported a fair and balanced rule for this very
necessary legislation. Only the rule will be considered by the House
today.
Mr. Speaker, the rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of
the Committee on Commerce, after which time the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the 5-minute rule.
The rule makes in order as an original bill for the purpose of
amendment under the 5-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a
substitute consisting of the text of H.R. 1391. This bill reflects a
consensus position reached by the two committees of jurisdiction in
this matter: The Committee on Commerce, and the Committee on Ways and
Means.
No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be
in order, except one further amendment in the nature of a substitute
which may be offered only by Representative Dingell or his designee.
The amendment shall not be subject to further amendment, and is
debatable for an hour, which shall be equally divided and controlled by
the proponent and an opponent.
Finally, the minority is provided with one motion to recommit, with
or without instructions.
Mr. Speaker, health care reform dominated much of the time and
attention of the 103d Congress. This year, work has already begun to
explore new and innovative ways to make health care more available and
affordable for our citizens, especially for older Americans.
As Chairman Bliley stated before the Committee on Rules last evening,
this legislation provides a reasonable balance to permit a very
valuable, and arguably successful, program for our senior citizens to
continue, while allowing us time to evaluate the program more closely
before making it permanent.
[[Page H4367]] Our colleagues should keep in mind that the Medicare
Select Program provides senior citizens with another viable option to
receive affordable medical care. Premiums under the select option have
resulted in savings as high as 37 percent over traditional MediGap
products. By giving older Americans more choices within MediGap, we
give them the flexibility to choose plans which meet their special,
individual needs.
Mr. Speaker, the sponsors of this legislation have made it very clear
that the House needs to act on this bill before leaving for the
upcoming district work period. More than 450,000 Medicare beneficiaries
will be impacted if the Medicare Select Demonstration Program is not
expanded.
Mr. Speaker, this is a fair, balanced, and responsible rule. It
provides the minority with two distinct opportunities to offer
alternative proposals. These proposals may contain whatever germane
amendments the minority leadership considers most important, as long as
they are consistent with the standing rules of the House.
In the Rules Committee hearing, we discussed a number of substantive
amendments which were offered during the separate committee markup
process, all of which were defeated at the committee level. While these
proposals do have merit, Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee majority
strongly believes that they should be brought up when the House
considers legislation specifically addressing reform of Medicare and
MediGap programs. It would seem unfair to single out one program for
reform at this time when all MediGap policies together should be
examined at the proper time.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, let me emphasize that it is imperative that
the House complete its consideration of this legislation and forward it
to the Senate, which we all know operates at a much different pace than
the House.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this fair,
balanced, and very reasonable rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to stand on the House floor
today to publicly thank my good friend, the gentleman from New York,
Mr. Jerry Solomon.
Democrats were upset to learn yesterday that the Republican
leadership was going to deny the Democrats on the Commerce Committee
their right to have 3 days to file their views.
But Jerry Solomon came to our rescue. He talked to his leadership and
convinced them to change the schedule so that Democrats on the Commerce
Committee will be given time to file their views.
That's right. Thanks to Jerry Solomon we are taking up the rule
today, but we will take up the bill tomorrow and Democrats will have
the right to voice their opinion just as Republicans did when they were
in the minority.
Unfortunately, I cannot say Democrats are as happy with this rule as
we were with Jerry Solomon yesterday.
Today, we are discussing a closed rule on a simple, noncontroversial
bill that anyone and everyone should be allowed to amend if they see
fit.
But for some reason Republicans seem to have gotten in the habit of
breaking promises and socking it to American families. They are
shutting down this rule just as they restricted 66 percent of the
contract rules.
At least three amendments that were offered in the Commerce Committee
had significant bipartisan support. I would ask my colleagues, what is
going on here?
What reason on Earth could you have to forbid Democrats and
Republicans from offering amendments to this Medicare bill?
I urge my colleagues to defeat this rule.
Department of Health and Human Services, Health Care
Financing Administration,
Washington, DC, April 5, 1995.
Hon. John D. Dingell,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Dingell: I am responding to your request as to
whether there is any federal requirement that Medicare SELECT
insurers notify their enrollees about the status of their
policies prior to the expiration of the current authorization
for the demonstration.
There are no provisions in Federal law, regulations or the
NAIC Model that require plans to notify enrollees in April or
for that matter any time prior to the expiration of the
demonstration authority. Even after the demonstration
authority expires, plans are required to maintain coverage to
all enrollees who continue to hold policies.
Confusion may have arisen on this issue of notification
because of a provision in Section 10-N of the NAIC Model.
This section outlines the requirements for plans to provide
continuation of coverage in the event that the Secretary
notifies the states of her determination that SELECT policies
should be discontinued because of the failure of the
demonstration to be reauthorized or its substantial
amendment. This notification to states is at the Secretary's
discretion. Given the bipartisan interest in both the House
and Senate, we don't anticipate making such a determination
in the foreseeable future even in the unlikely event that
there is a temporary lapse in the authority for the
demonstration.
We are committed to working with Congress to improve the
options available to our beneficiaries. As you are aware, the
Administration supports a temporary extension of the 15-state
demonstration. Such an extension would provide sufficient
time to examine what we have learned from the demonstration
and to make needed changes to SELECT based on our findings. I
look forward to working with you on these issues.
Sincerely,
Bruce C. Vladeck,
Administrator.

Floor Procedure in the 104th Congress; Compiled by the Rules Committee Democrats
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Process used for floor Amendments in
Bill No. Title Resolution No. consideration order
H.R. 1*................ Compliance............. H. Res. 6 Closed...................... None.
H. Res. 6.............. Opening Day Rules H. Res. 5 Closed; contained a closed None.
Package. rule on H.R. 1 within the
closed rule.
H.R. 5*................ Unfunded Mandates...... H. Res. 38 Restrictive; Motion adopted N/A.
over Democratic objection
in the Committee of the
Whole to limit debate on
section 4; Pre-printing
gets preference.
H.J. Res. 2*........... Balanced Budget........ H. Res. 44 Restrictive; only certain 2R; 4D.
substitutes.
H. Res. 43............. Committee Hearings H. Res. 43 (OJ) Restrictive; considered in N/A.
Scheduling. House no amendments.
H.R. 2*................ Line Item Veto......... H. Res. 55 Open; Pre-printing gets N/A.
preference.
H.R. 665*.............. Victim Restitution Act H. Res. 61 Open; Pre-printing gets N/A.
of 1995. preference.
H.R. 666............... Exclusionary Rule H. Res. 60 Open; Pre-printing gets N/A.
Reform Act of 1995. preference.
H.R. 667............... Violent Criminal H. Res. 63 Restrictive; 10 hr. Time Cap N/A.
Incarceration Act of on amendments.
1995.
H.R. 668............... The Criminal Alien H. Res. 69 Open; Pre-printing gets N/A.
Deportation preference; Contains self-
Improvement Act. executing provision.
H.R. 728............... Local Government Law H. Res. 79 Restrictive; 10 hr. Time Cap N/A.
Enforcement Block on amendments; Pre-printing
Grants. gets preference.
H.R. 7................. National Security H. Res. 83 Restrictive; 10 hr. Time Cap N/A.
Revitalization Act. on amendments; Pre-printing
gets preference.
H.R. 729............... Death Penalty/Habeas... N/A Restrictive; Brought up N/A.
under UC with a 6 hr. time
cap on amendments.
S. 2................... Senate Compliance...... N/A Closed; Put on suspension None.
calendar over Democratic
objection.
H.R. 831............... To Permanently Extend H. Res. 88 Restrictive; Makes in order 1D.
the Health Insurance only the Gibbons amendment;
Deduction for the Self- waives all points of order;
Employed. Contains self-executing
provision.
H.R. 830............... The Paperwork Reduction H. Res. 91 Open........................ N/A.
Act.
H.R. 889............... Emergency Supplemental/ H. Res. 92 Restrictive; makes in order 1D.
Rescinding Certain only the Obey substitute.
Budget Authority.
H.R. 450............... Regulatory Moratorium.. H. Res. 93 Restrictive; 10 hr. Time Cap N/A.
on amendments; Pre-printing
gets preference.
H.R. 1022.............. Risk Assessment........ H. Res. 96 Restrictive; 10 hr. Time Cap N/A.
on amendments.
H.R. 926............... Regulatory Flexibility. H. Res. 100 Open........................ N/A.
H.R. 925............... Private Property H. Res. 101 Restrictive; 12 hr. time cap 1D.
Protection Act. on amendments; Requires
Members to pre-print their
amendments in the Record
prior to the bill's
consideration for
amendment. Waives
germaneness and budget act
points of order as well as
points of order concerning
appropriating on a
legislative bill against
the committee substitute
used as base text.
H.R. 1058.............. Securities Litigation H. Res. 105 Restrictive; 8 hr. time cap 1D.
Reform Act. on amendments; Pre-printing
gets preference; Makes in
order the Wyden amendment
and waives germaness
against it.
H.R. 988............... The Attorney H. Res. 104 Restrictive; 7 hr. time cap N/A.
Accountability Act of on amendments; Pre-printing
1995. gets preference.
H.R. 956............... Product Liability and H. Res. 109 Restrictive; Makes in order 8D; 7R.
Legal Reform Act. only 15 germane amendments
and denies 64 germane
amendments from being
considered.

[[Page H4368]]
Floor Procedure in the 104th Congress; Compiled by the Rules Committee Democrats--Continued
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Process used for floor Amendments in
Bill No. Title Resolution No. consideration order
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 1158.............. Making Emergency H. Res. 115 Restrictive; Combines N/A.
Supplemental emergency H.R. 1158 &
Appropriations and nonemergency 1159 and
Rescissions. strikes the abortion
provision; makes in order
only pre-printed amendments
that include offsets within
the same chapter (deeper
cuts in programs already
cut); waives points of
order against three
amendments; waives cl 2 of
rule XXI against the bill,
cl 2, XXI and cl 7 of rule
XVI against the substitute;
waives cl 2(e) of rule XXI
against the amendments in
the Record; 10 hr time cap
on amendments. 30 minutes
debate on each amendment.
H.J. Res. 73........... Term Limits............ H. Res. 116 Restrictive; Makes in order 1D; 3R
only 4 amendments
considered under a ``Queen
of the Hill'' procedure and
denies 21 germane
amendments from being
considered.
H.R. 4................. Welfare Reform......... H. Res. 119 Restrictive; Makes in order 5D; 26R
only 31 perfecting
amendments and two
substitutes; Denies 130
germane amendments from
being considered; The
substitutes are to be
considered under a ``Queen
of the Hill'' procedure;
All points of order are
waived against the
amendments.
H.R. 1271.............. Family Privacy Act..... H. Res. 125 Open........................ N/A
H.R. 660............... Housing for Older H. Res. 126 Open........................ N/A
Persons Act.
H.R. 1215.............. The Contract With H. Res. 129 Restrictive; Self Executes 1D
America Tax Relief Act language that makes tax
of 1995. cuts contingent on the
adoption of a balanced
budget plan and strikes
section 3006. Makes in
order only one substitute.
Waives all points of order
against the bill,
substitute made in order as
original text and Gephardt
substitute.
H.R. 483............... Medicare Select H. Res. 130 Restrictive; Waives cl 1D
Extension. 2(1)(6) of rule XI against
the bill; makes H.R. 1391
in order as original text;
makes in order only the
Dingell substitute; allows
Commerce Committee to file
a report on the bill at any
time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Contract Bills, 67% restrictive; 33% open. **All legislation, 74% restrictive; 26% open. ****Restrictive rules
are those which limit the number of amendments which can be offered, and include so called modified open and
modified closed rules as well as completely closed rules and rules providing for consideration in the House as
opposed to the Committee of the Whole. This definition of restrictive rule is taken from the Republican chart
of resolutions reported from the Rules Committee in the 103rd Congress. ****Not included in this chart are
three bills which should have been placed on the Suspension Calendar. H.R. 101, H.R. 400, H.R. 440.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Goss], a very distinguished member of the Committee on
Rules.
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this very fair,
structured rule for the consideration of H.R. 1391. This rule balances
the rights of the minority, with the pressing need to extend the
extraordinarily popular, and highly effective Medicare Select Program.
Seniors in my home State of Florida have benefited greatly from this
pilot program. Currently, more than 50,000 Medicare enrollees in
Florida have voluntarily chosen to purchase one of these unique
MediGap-PPO products--a product that helps fill the gap between what
health care actually costs and what Medicare will pay. Often this is a
substantial gap that has placed seniors in tough financial straits. On
the whole, Medicare select enrollees in Florida enjoy supplemental
premium costs that are about 25 percent lower than traditional
indemnity products. To seniors living on fixed incomes, this type of
insurance savings can make the crucial difference between barely
surviving and maintaining a certain level of quality of life. In some
cases, it can mean the difference between having supplemental coverage
for such costly things as prescription drugs or not. Seniors I have
talked to appreciate the simplified billing process that a Medicare
select policy offers--they do not have to front the cost of care and
then file two separate claims to seek reimbursement. In most cases,
under this program, all out-of-pocket costs are determined
and paid at the time of service. While some have expressed concerns
about the quality of care provided through these plans, seniors in
Florida have consistently expressed very high rates of satisfaction
with the care they have received. This has been demonstrated most
convincingly by the fact that more than 90 percent of enrollees retain
their policies--even though they could choose another Medigap option at
any time. Mr. Speaker, in order to ensure that the hundreds of
thousands of current Medicare select enrollees maintain the benefits of
this program, the Congress must act expeditiously. The program is set
to expire on June 30. And without assurances that the law will be
extended, insurers will have to begin to notify enrollees of their
plan's pending termination. By passing this rule, and H.R. 1391 today,
we will not only ensure that current beneficiaries maintain coverage,
but we will make it possible for seniors in an additional 35 States to
enjoy the benefits of this program. By extending the Medicare Select
Program to the rest of the country, we will reaffirm our commitment to
giving seniors more choices in Medicare--and provide them with more
opportunities to reduce their health care costs. I urge adoption of
this rule and the bill.

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Dingell], the ranking member of the committee.
{time} 1400

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the distinguished gentleman
from Massachusetts for yielding this time to me.
Mr. Speaker, this is a gag rule pure and simple. It is not needed at
this particular time. There is plenty of time to deal with this
legislation. If we pass this legislation tomorrow or today, the other
body will not be able to move on it until after they come back. If we
pass it the day after we come back from the recess, the other body can
still consider the legislation within sufficient time to meet the June
30 deadline.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition, and I say this with great respect
for my good friend, the chairman of the Committee on Rules, the
gentleman from New York, who has given us another gag rule.
I also object to the extraordinary way in which this bill was brought
to the floor and the way in which the minority's rights have been
trampled. There are two rules that have been dealt with unfavorably:
One is the 3-day requirement with regard to the minority having
opportunity to file minority views, and the other is a provision which
requires a 3-day layover. Neither of these needs to be waived at this
time.
This is a closed rule. It is an unfair rule. It is a restrictive
rule. It prevents Members from offering amendments other than one
substitute that requires any and all amendments to be packaged into
one, regardless of whether they are consistent with each other. It
simply imposes on the Congress a requirement that we legislate poorly
without adequate opportunity for debate or proper discussion on a piece
of legislation which is relatively unimportant and on which there is no
great need for haste.
There is absolutely no justification for this closed rule. Even the
justification suggested by my colleagues in the majority collapse on
close scrutiny.
My friend, the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson], has
suggested at the Rules Committee that a closed rule shutting off
individual amendments is appropriate because she disagrees with the
substance of the amendments. It is my view those kind of amendments
should be a matter of decision by the House and not by the Committee on
Rules, and certainly not by one Member alone.
An open rule would have afforded my colleagues the opportunity to
argue why amendments should be passed or defeated. The gentlewoman from
Connecticut has suggested that matters on which the Members disagree
should not be put before the Members for their consideration. That
seems to indicate we should make this body more like the Russian Duma
or perhaps the Reichstag and that disagreement over facts and policy
are not appropriate for Members on the House floor.
The gentlewoman has also suggested that a closed rule was justified
because the amendments the minority was contemplating were too narrow
in scope and should apply to a broader series of insurance policies.
Ironically, her bill was narrowed by the Republicans in the Committee
on Ways and Means precisely for the purpose of preventing the
[[Page H4369]] offering of germane amendments that were broader.
The bill brought before the Committee on Commerce was similarly
narrowed to just this one class of policy. We heard in the Rules
Committee that a closed rule might be justified by the fact that the
Commerce Committee markup involved a discrete number of amendments and
took only 2 hours to complete. That sounds like a bill uniquely suited
and qualified for a completely open rule. It would not burden Members
with too many votes or too much debate time.
Given the relatively small number of issues and the limited time they
might occupy, we are here witnessing a rule that has been closed
gratuitously.
Finally, it was suggested in the Rules Committee that a closed rule
was in order because this bill was reported out by the Ways and Means
Committee by a large margin.
Leaving aside the fact that amendments in the Commerce Committee lost
by narrow margins, has the measure for whether minority rights should
be protected become the number of people in the minority?
We have heard a lot about how a closed rule was necessary because
this legislation is urgent. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Indeed the minority has not been in any way uncooperative in bringing
this legislation to floor. Nor did we in any way delay the
consideration of the legislation in either of the two committees.
Even if this legislation were urgent, and it is not, does it mean
that debate must be stifled? We managed to debate quite fully the
resolution on the Gulf war, and that matter had real urgency and was
not so limited, in fact, by time.
But the fact is this bill is not urgently needed. Arguments about the
legal need for notification of insurers and policyholders are wrong and
are being used to alarm senior citizens unnecessarily so that some
insurers who might cut a fat hog off this program might scare off any
opposition to it. The 15-State demonstration project does not expire
until the end of June, and I have not heard of a single Member who
objects to the extension of that particular program.
But what is really curious here is how the proponents of this rule
are using the expiration of a program in 15 States, 3 months from now,
3 months from now, to justify urgent expansion of this experiment to
the other 35 States.
This is like rushing through a bill that gives flood relief not only
to California but the other 49 States and arguing that it is urgent.
A further sign that these arguments are phony is the lack of urgency
felt in the other body. There is no indication that body will act
before the recess. There has not even been a committee markup there.
In addition to being unduly restrictive, this rule comes to the floor
under an exceptional and highly objectionable procedure. The committee
report has not been filed. Indeed the Rules Committee met last night
without having a committee report before it. The minority has not had
its full 3 days to prepare its views. In fact, the rule contains a most
extraordinary provision permitting the committee to file its report at
any time. Are we beginning a process whereby the committees will not
have to file their reports until after bills are passed?
The rule also waives the 3-day layover. These are rights which have
always been considered sacrosanct, and whenever any attempt was made to
control them on the part of the Democrats when we controlled this body,
there was enormous outrage expressed by our colleagues on the
Republican side.
Finally, the rule is objectionable because it makes in order a bill
that no committee has reported out. It purports to be a compromise
between Commerce and the Ways and Means Committees, but there was no
consultation whatsoever that took place between the majority and
minority. Therefore, it is not a compromise.
Furthermore, the Ways and Means Committee would not even be
represented on the floor under this closed rule.
I urge my colleagues to reject this rule, I urge my colleagues to let
us consider the matter in a more deliberate and appropriate fashion.
There is no need for haste. We have not been delaying the matter. I
believe that in protecting the rights of the minority, the rights of
all Americans are protected as opposed to just some select few in the
insurance industry.
Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from the
State of Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson], who has done so much hard work on
this issue.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this
rule permitting us to vote an extension and expansion of Medicare
Select. I urge my colleagues to support making these health insurance
plans, which Consumer Reports has rated so highly, available to seniors
in all 50 States.
I support this rule because it allows us to get to the central issue,
preserving a low-cost, high-quality insurance option for seniors while
not allowing requirements to be imposed on a single Medigap policy that
cannot under this bill be imposed on all MediGap policies in the
market.
Mr. Speaker, it is important that we not add requirements to Medicare
Select that would treat these plans differently from other MediGap
prices. During each committee's markup, amendments were defeated
because they would have required select plans to offer benefits, plan
options and rates that would not apply to other Medigap policies.
The time to address these issues is when we make changes to all
Medigap plans. Otherwise, Medicare Select plans would operate on an
unlevel playing field and at a competitive disadvantage, eroding the
savings seniors now enjoy by choosing these plans.
The Ways and Means Committee approved extension and expansion of the
select program with a very bipartisan vote of 31 to 2. The Commerce
Committee reported its legislation by voice vote.
My esteemed colleague, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell],
agrees that this bill has broad bipartisan support.
If Congress does not act to extend this program this week, nearly a
half-million seniors risk losing low-cost MediGap coverage. Companies
offering these policies need to begin making plans now to prepare
providers and beneficiaries about the future of their program.
Medicare Select is a MediGap policy--covering costs and services that
Medicare does not. The difference is that select enrollees get their
care from a preferred provider organization. Enrollees are still
Medicare beneficiaries: Medicare will cover their health care costs
even if they go outside the health network. By staying within the
network, beneficiaries make the best use of their coverage because the
health plan picks up most or all of their out-of-pocket costs.
Medicare Select is not a Medicare HMO/risk-contracting plan. Such
plans require Medicare beneficiaries to obtain their care entirely
within the network, or Medicare won't pay. With select, beneficiaries
can still get Medicare to cover their charges even if they go outside
the network, and in cases of emergency, the plan will reimburse charges
in full.
Medicare Select saves beneficiaries money. Seniors on fixed incomes
can save from 9 to 38 percent on the cost of their MediGap premium--up
to $300 a year.
Mr. Speaker, Medicare Select is not a Government program. Medicare
Select is a MediGap insurance policy and regulated at the Federal and
State levels just as all such policies are.
Mr. Speaker, it operates around Medicare requirements. But it has
indirect benefits to Medicare, however, because enrollees are using
health providers within an integrated delivery system. Thus,
inappropriate utilization of medical services is avoided. A California
select plan found that the cost of medical services per admission for
network providers was 20 percent lower than for non-network providers.
In addition, the average length of stay for network providers was 50
percent lower than for non-network providers.
I urge my colleagues to support this rule and support the extension
of Medicare Select to all States before we adjourn.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Stark], the ranking minority member of the
subcommittee.
[[Page H4370]] Mr. STARK. I thank the gentleman for yielding this
time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to remind my colleagues that Medicare is
the finest health insurance program in the country. It is the only
functional health insurance system in the country, and universal
coverage is guaranteed. More than 99 percent of the Americans over 65
are covered. No private insurance company will even offer insurance to
people in that age group.
There is no insurance plan in the country that offers beneficiaries a
higher, more broader choice of high-quality, affordable health
insurance than does Medicare.
The success of this program, although it may rankle those who cannot
stand to see the Federal Government do anything well, is, in large
part, due to the willingness of prior Congresses to provide choice to
beneficiaries or at the same time putting in the extra effort to
guarantee to those beneficiaries that this range of choices will not be
hazardous to their health.
Strong beneficiary protections are vital to the well-being of the
seniors of our country.
I might remind the gentlewoman from Connecticut that she misspoke.
There are no Federal regulations on Medicare select, none whatsoever.
Therein might be the modest suggestion that many of us would have for
improving this experiment and guaranteeing that it does not become
subject to the same avaricious group, like Prudential Insurance, who
have been fined $300 million for stealing billions from senior
citizens.
I am not sure those are the people I want to run my mother's health
care plan under Medicare select, and there would be nothing to stop
them from stealing under this plan if Prudential chose to run one.
There are many other questions about the program, questions about the
use of attained-age premiums, the bait-and-switch policy that some
insurance companies use, selling a lowball premium to somebody when
they turn 65 only to see that premium double and triple when they get
to the delicate age of 67 or 68 or 80, where they can no longer afford
it and see their premiums doubled and tripled.
There is no protection against that. Questions about the
comparability of Medicare select products with other MediGap products,
so that unscrupulous insurance salesmen do not unnecessarily confuse
and cancel insurance for senior citizens.
The seniors deserve some protection there against those few
unscrupulous sales people.
Last but not least, questions about the effect of these products on
the Medicare expenditures, the trust fund which my Republican
colleagues are so concerned about as they continue to break the trust
fund with their capricious tax cuts, it is a fact that this has not
saved Medicare any money at all and may indeed cost extra money. Those
things should be looked at.
It seems to me that some modest protections--even the gentlewoman
from Connecticut, in her original bill, had a few protections in her
bill which were stripped out when the bill was presented to the
Committee on Ways and Means.
{time} 1415

These questions deserve answers, and I would ask the gentlewoman who
is managing the bill for the majority what is the hurry. I do not know.
If we pass this today or tomorrow, is there a reason that this bill
must pass tomorrow or today?
Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STARK. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
Ms. PRYCE. We would like to get this to the Senate as soon as
possible. Their pace is much different than ours. They are coming back
a week before we are, so they can get a jump on it and get moving on
it. This does expire in June, and we would like to see this extended.
Mr. STARK. I am reliably informed they do not intend to take it up,
but, other than that, it can lay over there as well as lay here. That
could well be. We still have until the end of June, and, as I say, why
are we bringing it up today? I mean, if it is such urgency, I do not
know because it seems to me we are bringing it up without the
responsible procedure of seeing whether the bill is indeed any good. A
closed rule does not permit any changes, and, except in some of the tax
bills, I do not know what this urge, this rush, to judgment. If it is
so good, why would it not stand the scrutiny of some discussion? I
really do not--have no understanding of that, and I have heard precious
little response from the majority side as to what they are scared of.
What is it they are afraid of that will be offered?
I am puzzled. I begin to--I would not say smell a rat--but why we
would rush to jam this down the throats of unsuspecting seniors? My
mother is perfectly happy right now with Blue Cross, and she has got
Aetna--or she has got AARP's MediGap. Why? She is happy.
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STARK. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. BILBRAY. Let me say, as somebody who has had to work with this
population from a county service point of view, the inconsistency of
not letting them know as soon as humanly possible what their options
are and if this program will be available, and, as somebody who
administered Federal programs, as my colleague knows, his side of the
aisle again and again--
Mr. STARK. If I could reclaim my time to just explain to the
gentleman that those people who are in the plan cannot be canceled even
if we do not pass this. They are guaranteed to stay in. The only thing
it would prevent is those insurance salesmen from selling new plans for
perhaps a day or a week, it we miss the goal.
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STARK. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. BILBRAY. I say to the gentleman, ``But their premiums can be
raised, and you tell a senior that it's no problem. You just pay more,
and you won't know what that is in the future. We try to lay a defined
course for these people. They have enough insecurity. They don't need
us playing games back and forth, and you, more than anybody else, knows
that you try to send messages that we pre-warn citizens of a changing
situation as much as humanly possible.''
Mr. STARK. If I can reclaim and explain to the gentleman. The
premiums under the current law cannot be raised during the middle of
the year so that there, first, is no danger that existing beneficiaries
under these plans would have their premiums raised until the end of
their policy year; and, second, there would be no restrictions on their
being able to maintain their policies. It is just that the salesmen,
admittedly, and it may hurt the insurance salesmen because they earn
their living doing this. I would just suggest that it is risky business
dealing with the fragile elderly who are easily confused, and I say
that Democrat elderly are as confused as Republican elderly. We ought
to be able to protect them through the process.
Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Thomas], who has done a lot of work in this area and
can speak to many of the concerns just raised.
(Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I would tell the gentleman from California,
my friend and colleague who is a freshman, that at the beginning of the
104th Congress it was my privilege to follow the gentleman from
California [Mr. Stark] as the chairman of the Health Subcommittee of
the Committee on Ways and Means. What he probably does not realize is
that this program was supposed to be a permanent program back in 1990.
It moved through the Congress as a permanent program. At the 11th hour,
behind closed doors, with pulled curtains, they made it a demonstration
program. This whining about, gee, what is the delay--I will not yield--
the delay is in the gentleman's lap completely.
It took us until 11:30 at night the last day of the 103d Congress to
extend this program.
I loved the gentleman from Michigan asking what is the problem. We
have plenty of time to move legislation. At 1:30 a.m. the Senate acted
to extend this program. Why do they not want to move forward? They want
to see the
[[Page H4371]] program dead; that is why. All of these crocodile tears
about seniors. What they are scared to death about is that this one
little choice program among 10 other MediGap policies will show, by
people choosing it, that managed care is a better way to go in the
Medicare Program. They cannot stand one chink in the armor of the old-
fashioned fee-for-service system to be tested at all.
Now we moved this bill through the Committee on Ways and Means on
March 8. The first week in March we moved this bill.
How many members of the Committee on Ways and Means opposed this?
Two. There is one of them. He convinced one other member to oppose
making this permanent. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons], a
senior himself representing a number of seniors, he is for it. The
gentleman from California [Mr. Matsui], outspoken in terms of the
protection of seniors' rights, he voted for it. Thirty-one members of
the Committee on Ways and Means said, ``You're right. This program
should be made permanent.''
What is the rush? There are only about 18 legislative days between
now and when this program expires. They want to take all the time in
the world.
This objection about rights under this rule? ``How many times, when
you were the majority, did you not even give us the right to
recommit?''
I say to my colleagues, ``You've got two bites at the apple. You can
offer your own substitute, and then you can have the motion to
recommit. You can change it twice. You've got an opportunity to
convince folks that making it permanent is wrong. You couldn't convince
the Commerce Committee. You could only convince two members of the Ways
and Means Committee.''
The idea that we did not give them 3 days to examine this rule?
Notice carefully he said we are violating the 3-day rule, not on the
bill, but on the rule itself. Those folks need 3 days to study a two-
paragraph rule? I say to my colleagues, ``You've got your full 3 days
guaranteed to the minority on the bill.''
Now, finally, what I consider absolutely egregious and outrageous,
for the gentleman from California to stand up and say that the
gentlewoman from Connecticut is wrong about Federal protections on this
program. She said there were some; he said there were none.
I would invite the gentleman's attention to the Federal Register,
August 21, 1992, beginning on page 37993, which is section 10, Medicare
Select Policies
and Certificates. This section shall apply to Medicare select policies
and certificates, and on, and on, and on, page, after page, after page
of a Federal structuring that is to be followed by the States to make
sure that the seniors are protected in this program area.

This rule is a good rule, it is a fair rule, it is an appropriate
rule, it is a timely rule. We will pass this rule, and then, more
importantly, we will finally being to move permanently, Medicare
select.
The seniors deserve a choice. These detractors continue to try to
stand in the way, and we will not let them.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Waxman] who is the ranking member of the committee.
(Mr. WAXMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WAXMAN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. STARK. I just wanted to correct the misstatements of the previous
speaker.
On March 8 the committee report indicates that the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Gibbons] did not vote. As a practical matter, he was out
sick on that day and did not vote on this bill either way.
Second, the House of Representatives has never considered Medicare
select in its deliberations. It was added about the Senators in a
conference and never considered in the House of Representatives, and I
stand by the statement that there are no Federal regulations covering
it.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California [Mr.
Stark] for that clarification.
I must say I am absolutely astounded by the comments of the gentleman
from California [Mr. Thomas] a minute or two ago on the House floor. He
seems to ignore the whole history of this proposal and then
mischaracterizes what is at issue today.
The Medicare Program pays for the beneficiaries to go to the doctors
and the hospitals of their choice and pays most of those costs, but
there are costs that have to be incurred by the elderly. For that
people go out and buy MediGap supplemental insurance policies.
There are a lot of anticonsumer practices in the sale of these
policies, so in 1990 the Congress said the insurance commissioner
should set up a uniform benefit package for MediGap so people can
compare one policy to another. People were being sold MediGap policies
to cover things that were already covered under Medicare. They were
paying for coverage that they already had. The consumers were being
ripped off.
So these policies were established, 10 different packages.
At the same time the Congress moved to allow people to go into HMO's
and have their coverage through a health maintenance organization.
Medicare select came out as a sort of different kind of policy, not an
HMO, but not a complete choice of doctors and hospitals for the
Medicare beneficiary. The Medicare select said that, if a senior would
sign up, they could go to the doctors on the panel. If they went
outside the panel, they had to pay for it. Their MediGap policy would
only cover the doctors on the panel, to supplement the Medicare
payments to them. It is like a preferred provider organization, and it
was established as an experiment because it was the only MediGap policy
being sold that did not give the consumer the free choice of doctors
and other health providers.
Many consumers have found this very appealing. It has been an
experiment in a number of States, and that experiment is up. But before
the experiment is up, we have not had the analysis yet of how well it
has done, but from those of us who have followed it, like in my own
State of California, I think it has been a choice for consumers that
has been well worth while.
The bill before us would make it available in all 50 States. In my
opinion that may be premature, but I have no serious problem with
allowing Medicare select policies in 50 States. But there are two
problems that we should address. One is if someone goes into a Medicare
select panel, and they do not like the doctors, and they do not feel
they are being treated well in this kind of hybrid MediGap policy. They
should be permitted to leave and go to another MediGap coverage policy
that would give them the choice of doctors.
One of the amendments that was offered in the Committee on Commerce
by a Republican Member, a doctor, the gentleman from Iowa [Mr.
Ganske]--he offered, and I supported, many of our Members supported,
the ability of people, if they did not like their Medicare select
policy, to be able to have a choice of another MediGap policy. They
might not have this choice, they might not have it because they passed
up the opportunity for another policy if they signed up on Medicare
select. So we wanted to say, if Medicare select were going to be made
available in all 50 States, they ought to make sure the consumers have
a choice to opt out. That is a very important consumer protection.
One would think from what the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas]
had to say it was not even an issue, but that is what we are talking
about in this rule because that amendment would not even be permitted
to be offered as a separate amendment on the House floor when this bill
is presented.
A second issue:
If people are in a MediGap policy, they could have a fairly low rate
when they start, but there is nothing to restrict the insurance
companies as they get older and sicker from moving up the rate of that
MediGap policy cost.
{time} 1430

That seems to be a real troublesome area, where consumers can be
taken advantage of. And if they are priced out of their ability to buy
that Medigap policy, because they have attained a higher age and
therefore can have a higher premium imposed upon them, the consumers
may be priced out
[[Page H4372]] of the ability to get any Medigap coverage. So we wanted
to have an amendment on that issue.
The Committee on Rules offered a rule that we are now considering
that will not even give us that opportunity to offer those amendments.
We have to tie them all together in a substitute amendment, but not be
able to offer these two distinct amendments. That is what our objection
to this rule is all about. It is not that we do not want to have
Medicare Select policies. It is that we do not want them marked in a
way where the consumers can be disadvantaged.
Now, the rule is an unfair rule and it has been hastily put together.
The bill was marked up in our committee, the Committee on Energy and
Commerce, Monday evening, and we offered those two separate amendments
that we are not going to be permitted to offer. The rule now before us
not only would not allow these two amendments to be offered, it waives
the usual 3-day layover period and it would permit the bill to be
brought up even though a committee report with dissenting views has not
been filed, as far as I know, by the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
I think that we ought to have an opportunity to debate these issues
when the bill comes up. Some of us will support the bill, to allow
Medicare Select as an option. But they should not have Medicare Select
as an option that freezes people into a panel of doctors which may not
be satisfactory to them and not allow them then to get another Medigap
policy.
So I would urge opposition to this resolution, to allow us the
opportunity to argue these separate issues, to protect the elderly
consumers in this country from unscrupulous insurance practices when
they go out to get their Medigap policy.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.
Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the
distinguished Chair of the Subcommittee on Health and Environment of
the Committee on Commerce, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis].
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time
to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule providing for the
consideration of legislation to extend the current Medicare Select
Program which is scheduled to expire in June.
On January 11, 1995, our colleague, the gentlewoman from Connecticut,
introduced H.R. 483, a bill to amend title 18 of the Social Security
Act to permit Medicare Select policies to be offered in all States, and
for other purposes. That bill was referred to the Committee on Commerce
as the committee of primary jurisdiction and in addition, to the
Committee on Ways and Means.
On February 15, 1995, our Health and Environment Subcommittee held an
oversight hearing on Medicare Select and issues related to Medicare
managed care. On March 22, 1995, the subcommittee met and marked up
H.R. 483 and approved the bill for full committee consideration, as
amended, by a voice vote. On Monday, April 3, 1995, the full Commerce
Committee met and ordered H.R. 483 reported to the House, as amended,
by a voice vote, a quorum being present.
As ordered reported by the Commerce Committee, H.R. 483 would extend
the Medicare Select Program for an additional 5 years and expand the
coverage to include all 50 States in order to continue in an improved
way the demonstration project, which is really what we are trying to
do.
The Committee on Ways and Means also completed action on H.R. 483,
and reported a different version of the legislation to the House. The
Ways and Means Committee version of the bill extends the Medicare
Select Program to all 50 States on a permanent basis.
Since the time that both committees completed action on H.R. 483, the
committees have met and have developed a consensus bill, H.R. 1391,
which was introduced in the House on April 4. This rule makes in order
the text of H.R. 1391.
The bill to be considered would extend the Medicare Select Program
for a 5-year period and expands the coverage to all 50 States.
The bill would also require the Secretary of the Department of Health
and Human Services to conduct a study comparing the health care costs,
quality of care, and access to services under Medicare select policies
with other Medigap policies. This study must be completed by the end of
1998. Based on the results of this study, the Secretary must make a
determination that the Medicare Select Program is permanent unless the
study finds that, first, Medicare select has not resulted in savings to
Medicare select enrollees, second, it has led to significant
expenditures in the Medicare Program, or third, it has significantly
diminished access to and quality of care.
I think this bill provides for a reasonable balance that will permit
a valuable and innovative program for our senior citizens to be
continued while permitting a more informed evaluation of the program.
We must remember that Medicare select is a Medigap insurance policy
which provides seniors with another option to receive medical care. By
giving the elderly more choices within Medigap, we give them the option
to pick plans which meet their individual needs.
Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this rule that will provide for
consideration of this important legislation.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon [Mr. Wyden].
(Mr. WYDEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule, and
specifically would like to address the comment that the gentleman from
California [Mr. Thomas] made earlier about the views that somehow
Democrats are a little bit frightened of managed care or skeptical of
its benefits.
I come from an area with one of the highest concentrations of
Medicare and managed care in our country, and we know that there can be
good managed Medicare. But in our programs, there is real choice. There
are real options. And that is why we are concerned about this rule,
because we think it takes away needed options from senior citizens.
Frankly, because I believe that when we come back the other side will
be proposing major cuts in Medicare that are going to take additional
choices and options away from seniors, I think it is very important
that in Medicare select we build in some more choices and some more
consumer protections.
For example, my friends on the other side are not worried about
attained age pricing in their bill. What that means is that the prices
the senior citizens pay go up with the age of the older person. A lot
of these older people have no idea about the rate hikes
that are going to hit them with Medicare select.

We hear that seniors are happy at this point about Medicare select.
Of course they are, because the product is new. A lot of these older
people may have only had it for 18 months. They got a statement, maybe
a disclosure form, that said there was going to be attained age
pricing. It did not prepare them for the rate shock that is coming.
Let us vote against this rule, let us fashion an alternative, that
provides real choice to older people. Let us offer an alternative that
protects senior citizens against draconian rate hikes.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule, and then
fashion a bipartisan program that will protect the rights of older
people in our country.
Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Bilbray], a distinguished new Member who has much
experience.
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, let me just say as somebody who is new on
the block, but has been involved in many programs that have been
mandated, allowed, and pursued by the Federal Government, one of the
greatest frustrations a constituency in America has is when Washington
starts sending mixed signals and then waits for the last minute to give
a go-ahead. The inconsistency of the political process in Congress is
always frustrating for the constituents out in real world America. They
watch us in the House and they watch the Senate with their faster than
light process of coming to a conclusion to let America know what the
rules are that they are going to be able to live by.
Well, I strongly support this proposal, because I think we need to
send a clear message to our seniors, not only in California where we
have over 100,000 seniors that have made this
[[Page H4373]] choice, Mr. Speaker, but also many other States where
this opportunity is needed.
Mr. Speaker, I know there are those who fear the MediGap concept. I
know there are those who want to defend to their dying day the fee for
service, even if it means denying an alternative to fee for service to
our seniors.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues, not as just a Member of
Congress, but as somebody who has not so long ago been a consumer of
the products that come out of Congress, let us send that clear message
as quick as possible, let us make sure the consumer knows what the
rules are, and let Congress get its job done in time so the seniors
know the rules that they are going to be expected to play by.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Stark].
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, may I engage the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms.
Pryce] in a colloquy for a moment.
Mr. Speaker, I gather that the majority feels that we should move
ahead rapidly with this bill, and I begin to sense that we are not
going to have any opportunity to amend it.
Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STARK. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the gentleman. There are two
opportunities.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Ohio is correct. I am
sure we are not making many friends with all this, but this is one of
the things we might do to accommodate many of our colleagues who might
like to end the 100 days sooner: Is there any reason in the rule that
the bill could not be considered this afternoon?
Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, It is my
understanding we are protecting the rights of the minority.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I am about to suggest, if the minority would
be willing to accept unanimous consent, that the bill be considered
today, so in a matter of comity we are prepared and would be happy to
proceed, and I am sure we would make a lot of friends.
Mr. Speaker, I do not believe unanimous consent is necessary, but I
ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered today.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hobson). The gentleman from California
[Mr. Stark] was not recognized for the purpose of making a unanimous-
consent request. The unanimous consent request is not entertained.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, If the gentleman would yield, let me just
say to the gentleman, as the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley]
has said, we did defend the minority's rights. We wanted to give 3 days
for the minority's views. I always insisted on it when I was in the
minority. You have just filed your minority views, and we have Members
on this side of the aisle that would like to have time to look at your
minority views. We value your views, seriously.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Dingell].
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I understand that my views on this matter
have created vast distress on the part of my Republican colleagues.
They are very easily distressed, and this pains me. For the help of my
colleagues on that side, I would say I do not mind bringing the bill up
today or tomorrow. If the leadership on that side wants to do it, they
can do it. They have been quite wanton in disregard of the rights of
the minority and in disregard of the rules, and I see no reason why I
would object to further practices of that sort at this time.
So if the leadership on the other side wants to bring this bill up,
they control this place. I would suggest that they should commence
doing so forthwith, and then we will hear less complaining on the
Republican side about how this side, in insisting on the orderly
conduct of the business of the House and the proper conduct of the
business and protection of the rights of the minority, is delaying the
conduct of the business of the House, which we in fact are not doing.
The bill is going to be passed. It needs to be perfected. It will not
be passed as perfected because the Republicans will not participate in
the perfection of it by eliminating two very significant problems,
which the amendments to be offered by this side would perfect.

{time} 1445

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Thomas].
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time
to me.
I do have to compliment the minority. I thought perhaps they were not
learning to become the minority quite as quickly as we had hoped they
would. But what we have just heard on the part of the minority is an
absolute denouncement of the rule because it denies them the privileges
of the minority on the 3-day rule. And then less then 20 minutes later,
standing up and deciding, maybe they really did not want that 3-day
period.
They talked about the fact that this does not need to be rushed
through at all. And then less than an hour later, gee, we might as well
expedite the business of the House.
I compliment them that both sides of the mouth is working well.
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the
closed rule on HR. 483, the Expanded Use of Medicare Select Policies
Act that would extend the Medicare Select demonstration program that
currently exists in my State of Illinois and 14 other States and would
allow all 50 States to participate.
Once again, despite the promises and pledges by the Republicans to
allow open debate on the House floor, we are being forced to accept a
closed rule that only permits one amendment to be considered. Several
germane amendments that were submitted for consideration have been
rejected outright with no explanation given. Yet again, free debate is
stifled by this rule that permits only 1 hour of debate. Mr. Speaker,
this is clearly not sufficient time for the two committees of
jurisdiction to debate the bill and the substitute to be discussed.
As we have seen since the 104th Congress first convened in January,
the Republicans talk a good talk. They pledge their dedication to free
and open debate, they declare how committed they are to the open rule
process and yet, once again, we are being bound and gagged with a
closed rule for no apparent reason. We are forced to race through the
debate at top speed with no chance to truly discuss or debate the
important bill before us.
I intend to oppose this rule and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hobson). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 253,
nays 172, not voting 9, as follows:

[Roll No. 298]

YEAS--253

Allard
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Borski
Brewster
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
de la Garza
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
[[Page H4374]] Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jacobs
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kennelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torricelli
Traficant
Upton
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer

NAYS--172

Abercrombie
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bishop
Bonior
Boucher
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Danner
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hinchey
Hoekstra
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Pickett
Poshard
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Rivers
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sisisky
Skaggs
Slaughter
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Towns
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates

NOT VOTING--9

Ackerman
Archer
Chapman
Dickey
Frost
Hilliard
Largent
Miller (CA)
Reynolds

{time} 1505

Mr. HOLDEN and Mr. GEJDENSON changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''.
Mr. LAZIO of New York changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________