[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 162 (Thursday, October 19, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H10314-H10328]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2425, MEDICARE PRESERVATION ACT OF 
                                  1995

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 238 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

                              H. Res. 238

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the 

[[Page H 10315]]
     House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
     the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2425) to amend 
     title XVIII of the Social Security Act to preserve and reform 
     the Medicare Program. 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 amendments specified in this resolution and shall 
     not exceed three hours equally divided among and controlled 
     by the chairmen and ranking minority members of the Committee 
     on Ways and Means and the Committee on Commerce. After 
     general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule. An amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute consisting of the text of H.R. 2485, modified by 
     the amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as adopted 
     in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. The bill, as 
     amended, shall be considered as the original bill for the 
     purpose of further amendment under the five-minute rule. The 
     bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of 
     order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. 
     No further amendment shall be in order except the amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute printed in the Congressional 
     Record and number 2 pursuant to clause 6 of rule XXIII, which 
     may be offered only by the minority leader 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. All points 
     of order against that amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     are waived. After a motion that the Committee rise has 
     been rejected on a day, the Chair may entertain another 
     such motion on that day only if offered by the chairman of 
     the Committee on Ways and Means, the chairman of the 
     Committee on Commerce, or the majority leader, or a 
     designee of any of them. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee 
     shall rise and report the bill, as amended, to the House 
     with such further amendment as may have been adopted. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     bill, as amended, and any amendment thereto to final 
     passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions. The motion to 
     recommit may include instructions only if offered by the 
     minority leader or his designee. The yeas and nays shall 
     be considered as ordered on the question of passage of the 
     bill and on any conference report thereon. Clause 5(c) of 
     rule XXI shall not apply to the bill, amendments thereto, 
     or conference reports thereon.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Linder] is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose 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 
purpose of debate only.
  (Mr. LINDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 238 is a modified closed 
rule that waives all points of order against H.R. 2425, the Medicare 
Preservation Act of 1995 and provides for consideration of this 
historic legislation. The rule allows for 3 hours of general debate to 
be equally divided between the chairmen and ranking minority members of 
the Committees on Ways and Means and Commerce. Following the 3 hours of 
general debate, the rule makes in order as an original bill for the 
purpose of amendment, the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
consisting of the text of H.R. 2485, as modified by the amendment 
printed in the Rules Committee report.

  The bill, as amended, shall be considered as the original bill for 
the purpose of further amendment under the 5-minute rule, and the bill 
shall be considered as read. All points of order against the provisions 
of the bill, as amended, are waived.
  The rule provides for consideration of an amendment in the nature of 
a substitute numbered 2 printed in the Congressional Record, if offered 
by the minority leader or his designee. All points of order are waived 
against this amendment. The amendment is considered as read, is not 
subject to amendment, and is debatable for 1 hour divided between a 
proponent and an opponent of the amendment.
  The rule provides that after a motion to rise has been rejected on 
any day, another motion to rise may only be offered by the chairman of 
the Committees on Ways and Means or Commerce, or by the majority 
leader, or a designee of either one of them. It also provides that the 
provisions of clause 5(c) of rule XXI shall not apply to votes on this 
bill, amendments, or the conference report for this bill. I expect that 
we will witness many eloquent speeches--pro and con--during today's 
debate, and these two provisions are simply designed to limit some 
common dilatory motions that may unnecessarily delay the consideration 
of this bill.
  Finally, this resolution provides one motion to recommit, with or 
without instructions, as is the right of the minority. If the motion to 
recommit does contain instructions, the rule provides that the motion 
may only be offered by the minority leader or his designee.
  Mr. Speaker, in about an hour, we will all participate in a historic 
event that will lead us to consider a bill that will almost immediately 
benefit millions of seniors, and eventually, millions of Americans who 
will one day look to Medicare for health care service. I am honored to 
carry to the House floor a rule that presents our monumental proposal 
to save Medicare.
  The fight to save Medicare began in earnest on April 3 of this year 
when the Medicare Board of Trustees that oversees the Medicare trust 
fund reported to Congress that the Medicare trust fund would begin to 
decline next year and would be completely bankrupt by the year 2002. 
The alarm to take drastic and immediate action to save the program has 
created an atmosphere that is both exciting and anxious for Medicare 
beneficiaries.
  While many have stood on the sidelines of the debate and pointed 
fingers of blame, we have accepted the trustee's challenge to rescue 
Medicare. The resolution crafted by the Rules Committees will bring to 
the House floor the Medicare Preservation Act--a bill that I believe is 
bold enough to preserve Medicare for another generation.
  As I previously stated, House Resolution 238 is a narrow rule 
allowing both sides of the aisle an opportunity to present the case 
that their proposal will protect Medicare for a generation of 
Americans. Ours is a carefully balanced bill that is the result of 
thousands of hours of work by Members of this House. This rule will 
preserve that delicate balance, and it is common practice for most 
bills coming out of the Ways and Means Committee to be considered under 
closed or modified closed rules. It is important to note that the 
original legislation creating the Medicare program for millions of 
Americans was considered under a closed rule in 1965.
  Before I lay out some of the general provisions of the act, I want to 
discuss two specific provisions included in this rule. First, the rule 
provides language to ensure that all areas of the country receive 
equitable funding through amendments to the capitation rate formula. 
While funding will be distributed based upon historical costs and 
changing populations, the rule provides that certain minimum funding 
levels will be maintained. The formula guarantees that historically 
low-cost areas will not be penalized because of their cost 
effectiveness.
  Second, the rule adds additional language to attack fraud and abuse 
in Medicare. The current Medicare system is so infected with fraud, 
abuse, and misuse that it wastes billions of dollars each year. I doubt 
that any Member of Congress has not had at least one constituent at 
a town hall meeting or other event to show the Member an example of a 
fraudulent or erroneous Medicare billing. My own mother has received 
three such billings in the last couple of years, and I am convinced 
that she is not the only one who has encountered this problem. 
Therefore, in addition to the antifraud provisions in the base text of 
this bill, this rule defines several new Federal health care crimes and 
defines penalties of up to 20 years in prison for violations of these 
laws, laws focusing on fraud, bribery, theft, embezzlement, and 
kickbacks. This provision covering doctors and hospitals engaging in 
this deceit deserves to be part of the bill, and this rule provides for 
its inclusion in the reform package.

  In addition to fighting fraud, this bill will reduce reimbursement 
rates for doctors and hospitals and provide seniors with more choices 
for health care delivery. To achieve these goals, the Medicare 
Preservation Act adds two new programs to the current Medicare 
program--MedicarePlus and Medisave. Through MedicarePlus, some citizens 


[[Page H 10316]]
will decide to choose a plan that offers fixed rates, and covers 
prescription drugs, and even eyeglasses. Increasingly, Americans have 
stated that they appreciate their managed care program, and would stay 
in it. This bill affords them the opportunity to choose managed care. 
Those who opt for medical savings accounts through Medisave would be 
completely in control of their own health spending. All of these 
changes will assure that we secure the Medicare promise we made to our 
seniors.
  We have to be clear: No benefit will be cut. You can keep your doctor 
and you have the option to choose any other doctor. There will be no 
coercion into any specific program. In fact, if a senior chooses a 
MedicarePlus program or chooses Medisave and then becomes dissatisfied, 
the bill states that the senior can always move back to the current 
Medicare system. We expect a very high degree of satisfaction, however, 
as the Congressional Budget Office has concluded that about 25 percent 
of seniors will take advantage of these new programs in the first few 
years. Over and over again, Americans have shown that they make wise 
choices, and this plan gives our seniors that opportunity.
  Medicare is a 1965 Blue Cross/Blue Shield program in which costs have 
simply grown out of control. For example, when the program began, the 
Government subsidized 50 percent of the part B premium. Yet today, the 
subsidy that our children and grandchildren must pay has grown to 68.5 
percent. Only the greediest of the elderly, none of whom I know, would 
ask their grandchildren to shoulder more of this burden. Therefore, we 
freeze the subsidy at this level. Despite cries from the other side 
that we are doubling premiums, the fact is that this proposal will 
simply raise the part B premium about $7 a month by year 7 of this 
plan. The $7 is a small price to pay to preserve both the future of 
Medicare and the future of our grandchildren.
  As I have stated before, the most extraordinary development has come 
in those nations that have put their trust in the power and potential 
of the marketplace. Market forces have modernized every other segment 
of our society, and I am certain that they will have the effect of 
improving quality and decreasing costs when applied to government 
health care. Without a doubt, H.R. 2425 will provide seniors with more 
choices and result in tremendous benefits to future generations of 
American seniors. We fulfill our promise to our citizens with this 
bill.
  The resolution that was favorably reported out of the Rules Committee 
is a fair rule that will allow for careful consideration of the 
Republican proposal to save Medicare and a minority substitute bill. I 
urge my colleagues to support the rule so that we may proceed with 
consideration of the merits of this extraordinarily important 
legislation.

                              {time}  0945

  Mr. Speaker, I submit the following for inclusion in the 
Congressional Record.

  THE AMENDMENT PROCESS UNDER SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE,\1\ 103D CONGRESS V. 104TH CONGRESS 
                                            [As of October 18, 1995]                                            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  103d Congress                        104th Congress           
              Rule type              ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Number of rules    Percent of total   Number of rules    Percent of total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open/Modified-open \2\..............                 46                 44                 51                 72
Modified Closed \3\.................                 49                 47                 17                 24
Closed \4\..........................                  9                  9                  3                  4
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.........................                104                100                 71                100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This table applies only to rules which provide for the original consideration of bills, joint resolutions or
  budget resolutions and which provide for an amendment process. It does not apply to special rules which only  
  waive points of order against appropriations bills which are already privileged and are considered under an   
  open amendment process under House rules.                                                                     
\2\ An open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule. A      
  modified open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule     
  subject only to an overall time limit on the amendment process and/or a requirement that the amendment be     
  preprinted in the Congressional Record.                                                                       
\3\ A modified closed rule is one under which the Rules Committee limits the amendments that may be offered only
  to those amendments designated in the special rule or the Rules Committee report to accompany it, or which    
  preclude amendments to a particular portion of a bill, even though the rest of the bill may be completely open
  to amendment.                                                                                                 
\4\ A closed rule is one under which no amendments may be offered (other than amendments recommended by the     
  committee in reporting the bill).                                                                             


                          SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE, 104TH CONGRESS                         
                                            [As of October 18, 1995]                                            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 Disposition of 
    H. Res. No. (Date rept.)         Rule type           Bill No.              Subject                rule      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 38 (1/18/95)...........  O................  H.R. 5...........  Unfunded Mandate        A: 350-71 (1/19/ 
                                                                        Reform.                 95).            
H. Res. 44 (1/24/95)...........  MC...............  H. Con. Res. 17..  Social Security.......  A: 255-172 (1/25/
                                                    H.J. Res. 1......  Balanced Budget Amdt..   95).            
H. Res. 51 (1/31/95)...........  O................  H.R. 101.........  Land Transfer, Taos     A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Pueblo Indians.         1/95).          
H. Res. 52 (1/31/95)...........  O................  H.R. 400.........  Land Exchange, Arctic   A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Nat'l. Park and         1/95).          
                                                                        Preserve.                               
H. Res. 53 (1/31/95)...........  O................  H.R. 440.........  Land Conveyance, Butte  A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        County, Calif.          1/95).          
H. Res. 55 (2/1/95)............  O................  H.R. 2...........  Line Item Veto........  A: voice vote (2/
                                                                                                2/95).          
H. Res. 60 (2/6/95)............  O................  H.R. 665.........  Victim Restitution....  A: voice vote (2/
                                                                                                7/95).          
H. Res. 61 (2/6/95)............  O................  H.R. 666.........  Exclusionary Rule       A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Reform.                 7/95).          
H. Res. 63 (2/8/95)............  MO...............  H.R. 667.........  Violent Criminal        A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Incarceration.          9/95).          
H. Res. 69 (2/9/95)............  O................  H.R. 668.........  Criminal Alien          A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Deportation.            10/95).         
H. Res. 79 (2/10/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 728.........  Law Enforcement Block   A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Grants.                 13/95).         
H. Res. 83 (2/13/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 7...........  National Security       PQ: 229-100; A:  
                                                                        Revitalization.         227-127 (2/15/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 88 (2/16/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 831.........  Health Insurance        PQ: 230-191; A:  
                                                                        Deductibility.          229-188 (2/21/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 91 (2/21/95)...........  O................  H.R. 830.........  Paperwork Reduction     A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Act.                    22/95).         
H. Res. 92 (2/21/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 889.........  Defense Supplemental..  A: 282-144 (2/22/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 93 (2/22/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 450.........  Regulatory Transition   A: 252-175 (2/23/
                                                                        Act.                    95).            
H. Res. 96 (2/24/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 1022........  Risk Assessment.......  A: 253-165 (2/27/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 100 (2/27/95)..........  O................  H.R. 926.........  Regulatory Reform and   A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Relief Act.             28/95).         
H. Res. 101 (2/28/95)..........  MO...............  H.R. 925.........  Private Property        A: 271-151 (3/2/ 
                                                                        Protection Act.         95).            
H. Res. 103 (3/3/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 1058........  Securities Litigation   .................
                                                                        Reform.                                 
H. Res. 104 (3/3/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 988.........  Attorney                A: voice vote (3/
                                                                        Accountability Act.     6/95).          
H. Res. 105 (3/6/95)...........  MO...............  .................  ......................  A: 257-155 (3/7/ 
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 108 (3/7/95)...........  Debate...........  H.R. 956.........  Product Liability       A: voice vote (3/
                                                                        Reform.                 8/95).          
H. Res. 109 (3/8/95)...........  MC...............  .................  ......................  PQ: 234-191 A:   
                                                                                                247-181 (3/9/   
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 115 (3/14/95)..........  MO...............  H.R. 1159........  Making Emergency Supp.  A: 242-190 (3/15/
                                                                        Approps.                95).            
H. Res. 116 (3/15/95)..........  MC...............  H.J. Res. 73.....  Term Limits Const.      A: voice vote (3/
                                                                        Amdt.                   28/95).         
H. Res. 117 (3/16/95)..........  Debate...........  H.R. 4...........  Personal                A: voice vote (3/
                                                                        Responsibility Act of   21/95).         
                                                                        1995.                                   
H. Res. 119 (3/21/95)..........  MC...............  .................  ......................  A: 217-211 (3/22/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 125 (4/3/95)...........  O................  H.R. 1271........  Family Privacy          A: 423-1 (4/4/   
                                                                        Protection Act.         95).            
H. Res. 126 (4/3/95)...........  O................  H.R. 660.........  Older Persons Housing   A: voice vote (4/
                                                                        Act.                    6/95).          
H. Res. 128 (4/4/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 1215........  Contract With America   A: 228-204 (4/5/ 
                                                                        Tax Relief Act of       95).            
                                                                        1995.                                   
H. Res. 130 (4/5/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 483.........  Medicare Select          A: 253-172 (4/6/
                                                                        Expansion.              95).            
H. Res. 136 (5/1/95)...........  O................  H.R. 655.........  Hydrogen Future Act of  A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        1995.                   2/95).          
H. Res. 139 (5/3/95)...........  O................  H.R. 1361........  Coast Guard Auth. FY    A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        1996.                   9/95).          
H. Res. 140 (5/9/95)...........  O................  H.R. 961.........  Clean Water Amendments  A: 414-4 (5/10/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 144 (5/11/95)..........  O................  H.R. 535.........  Fish Hatchery--         A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        Arkansas.               15/95).         
H. Res. 145 (5/11/95)..........  O................  H.R. 584.........  Fish Hatchery--Iowa...  A: voice vote (5/
                                                                                                15/95).         
H. Res. 146 (5/11/95)..........  O................  H.R. 614.........  Fish Hatchery--         A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        Minnesota.              15/95).         
H. Res. 149 (5/16/95)..........  MC...............  H. Con. Res. 67..  Budget Resolution FY    PQ: 252-170 A:   
                                                                        1996.                   255-168 (5/17/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 155 (5/22/95)..........  MO...............  H.R. 1561........  American Overseas       A: 233-176 (5/23/
                                                                        Interests Act.          95).            
H. Res. 164 (6/8/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 1530........  Nat. Defense Auth. FY   PQ: 225-191 A:   
                                                                        1996.                   233-183 (6/13/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 167 (6/15/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1817........  MilCon Appropriations   PQ: 223-180 A:   
                                                                        FY 1996.                245-155 (6/16/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 169 (6/19/95)..........  MC...............  H.R. 1854........  Leg. Branch Approps.    PQ: 232-196 A:   
                                                                        FY 1996.                236-191 (6/20/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 170 (6/20/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1868........  For. Ops. Approps. FY   PQ: 221-178 A:   
                                                                        1996.                   217-175 (6/22/  
                                                                                                95).            

[[Page H 10317]]
                                                                                                                
H. Res. 171 (6/22/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1905........  Energy & Water          A: voice vote (7/
                                                                        Approps. FY 1996.       12/95).         
H. Res. 173 (6/27/95)..........  C................  H.J. Res. 79.....  Flag Constitutional     PQ: 258-170 A:   
                                                                        Amendment.              271-152 (6/28/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 176 (6/28/95)..........  MC...............  H.R. 1944........  Emer. Supp. Approps...  PQ: 236-194 A:   
                                                                                                234-192 (6/29/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 185 (7/11/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1977........  Interior Approps. FY    PQ: 235-193 D:   
                                                                        1996.                   192-238 (7/12/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 187 (7/12/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1977........  Interior Approps. FY    PQ: 230-194 A:   
                                                                        1996 #2.                229-195 (7/13/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 188 (7/12/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1976........  Agriculture Approps.    PQ: 242-185 A:   
                                                                        FY 1996.                voice vote (7/18/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 190 (7/17/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2020........  Treasury/Postal         PQ: 232-192 A:   
                                                                        Approps. FY 1996.       voice vote (7/18/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 193 (7/19/95)..........  C................  H.J. Res. 96.....  Disapproval of MFN to   A: voice vote (7/
                                                                        China.                  20/95).         
H. Res. 194 (7/19/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2002........  Transportation          PQ: 217-202 (7/21/
                                                                        Approps. FY 1996.       95).            
H. Res. 197 (7/21/95)..........  O................  H.R. 70..........  Exports of Alaskan      A: voice vote (7/
                                                                        Crude Oil.              24/95).         
H. Res. 198 (7/21/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2076........  Commerce, State         A: voice vote (7/
                                                                        Approps. FY 1996.       25/95).         
H. Res. 201 (7/25/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2099........  VA/HUD Approps. FY      A: 230-189 (7/25/
                                                                        1996.                   95).            
H. Res. 204 (7/28/95)..........  MC...............  S. 21............  Terminating U.S. Arms   A: voice vote (8/
                                                                        Embargo on Bosnia.      1/95).          
H. Res. 205 (7/28/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2126........  Defense Approps. FY     A: 409-1 (7/31/  
                                                                        1996.                   95).            
H. Res. 207 (8/1/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 1555........  Communications Act of   A: 255-156 (8/2/ 
                                                                        1995.                   95).            
H. Res. 208 (8/1/95)...........  O................  H.R. 2127........  Labor, HHS Approps. FY  A: 323-104 (8/2/ 
                                                                        1996.                   95).            
H. Res. 215 (9/7/95)...........  O................  H.R. 1594........  Economically Targeted   A: voice vote (9/
                                                                        Investments.            12/95).         
H. Res. 216 (9/7/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 1655........  Intelligence            A: voice vote (9/
                                                                        Authorization FY 1996.  12/95).         
H. Res. 218 (9/12/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1162........  Deficit Reduction       A: voice vote (9/
                                                                        Lockbox.                13/95).         
H. Res. 219 (9/12/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1670........  Federal Acquisition     A: 414-0 (9/13/  
                                                                        Reform Act.             95).            
H. Res. 222 (9/18/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1617........  CAREERS Act...........  A: 388-2 (9/19/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 224 (9/19/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2274........  Natl. Highway System..  PQ: 241-173 A:   
                                                                                                375-39-1 (9/20/ 
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 225 (9/19/95)..........  MC...............  H.R. 927.........  Cuban Liberty & Dem.    A: 304-118 (9/20/
                                                                        Solidarity.             95).            
H. Res. 226 (9/21/95)..........  O................  H.R. 743.........  Team Act..............  A: 344-66-1 (9/27/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 227 (9/21/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1170........  3-Judge Court.........  A: voice vote (9/
                                                                                                28/95).         
H. Res. 228 (9/21/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1601........  Internatl. Space        A: voice vote (9/
                                                                        Station.                27/95).         
H. Res. 230 (9/27/95)..........  C................  H.J. Res. 108....  Continuing Resolution   A: voice vote (9/
                                                                        FY 1996.                28/95).         
H. Res. 234 (9/29/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2405........  Omnibus Science Auth..  A: voice vote (10/
                                                                                                11/95).         
H. Res. 237 (10/17/95).........  MC...............  H.R. 2259........  Disapprove Sentencing   A: voice vote (10/
                                                                        Guidelines.             18/95).         
H. Res. 238 (10/18/95).........  MC...............  H.R. 2425........  Medicare Preservation   .................
                                                                        Act.                                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Codes: O-open rule; MO-modified open rule; MC-modified closed rule; C-closed rule; A-adoption vote; D-defeated; 
  PQ-previous question vote. Source: Notices of Action Taken, Committee on Rules, 104th Congress.               



       Correction of Votes in Committee Report--October 19, 1995

       The Rules Committee's report, House Report 104-282 on House 
     Resolution 238, the rule for the consideration of H.R. 2425, 
     the Medicare Preservation Act of 1995, contains four 
     erroneous rollcall votes.
       Below is a correct version of those votes. The corrected 
     votes for Rollcall Nos. 178, 189, 202, and 203 are as 
     follows:

                            Committee Votes

       Pursuant to clause 2(l)(2)(B) of House rule XI the results 
     of each rollcall vote on an amendment or motion to report, 
     together with the names of those voting for and against, are 
     printed below. For a summary of the amendments moved to be 
     made in order, see section following the rollcall votes.


                    Rules Committee Rollcall No. 178

       Date: October 18, 1995.
       Measure: H.R. 2425, the Medicare Preservation Act of 1995.
       Motion By: Mr. Moakley.
       Summary of Motion: Make in order amendment by 
     Representative Rangel.
       Results: Rejected, 4 to 9.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Vote by Member                 Yea        Nay      Present 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUILLEN................................  .........         X   .........
DREIER.................................  .........         X   .........
GOSS...................................  .........         X   .........
LINDER.................................  .........         X   .........
PRYCE..................................  .........         X   .........
DIAZ-BALART............................  .........         X   .........
McINNIS................................  .........         X   .........
WALDHOLTZ..............................  .........         X   .........
MOAKLEY................................         X   .........  .........
BEILENSON..............................         X   .........  .........
FROST..................................         X   .........  .........
HALL...................................         X   .........  .........
SOLOMON................................  .........         X   .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    Rules Committee Rollcall No. 189

       Date: October 18, 1995.
       Measure: H.R. 2425, the Medicare Preservation Act of 1995.
       Motion By: Mr. Beilenson.
       Summary of Motion: Make in order amendment by 
     Representative Ganske.
       Results: Rejected, 4 to 9.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Vote by Member                 Yea        Nay      Present 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUILLEN................................  .........         X   .........
DREIER.................................  .........         X   .........
GOSS...................................  .........         X   .........
LINDER.................................  .........         X   .........
PRYCE..................................  .........         X   .........
DIAZ-BALART............................  .........         X   .........
McINNIS................................  .........         X   .........
WALDHOLTZ..............................  .........         X   .........
MOAKLEY................................         X   .........  .........
BEILENSON..............................         X   .........  .........
FROST..................................         X   .........  .........
HALL...................................         X   .........  .........
SOLOMON................................  .........         X   .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    Rules Committee Rollcall No. 202

       Date: October 18, 1995.
       Measure: H.R. 2425, the Medicare Preservation Act of 1995.
       Motion By: Mr. Solomon.
       Summary of Motion: Add provision to rule ordering yeas and 
     nays on passage of bill and suspending application of clause 
     5(c) of rule XXI to votes on passage of bill, amendments 
     thereto, and conference reports thereon.
       Results: Adopted, 9 to 3.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Vote by Member                 Yea        Nay      Present 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUILLEN................................         X   .........  .........
DREIER.................................         X   .........  .........
GOSS...................................         X   .........  .........
LINDER.................................         X   .........  .........
PRYCE..................................         X   .........  .........
DIAZ-BALART............................         X   .........  .........
McINNIS................................         X   .........  .........
WALDHOLTZ..............................         X   .........  .........
MOAKLEY................................  .........         X   .........
BEILENSON..............................  .........         X   .........
FROST..................................  .........  .........  .........
HALL...................................  .........         X   .........
SOLOMON................................         X   .........  .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    Rules Committee Rollcall No. 203

       Date: October 18, 1995.
       Measure: H.R. 2425, the Medicare Preservation Act of 1995.
       Motion By: Mr. Quillen.
       Summary of Motion: Order rule reported.
       Results: Adopted, 9 to 3.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Vote by Member                 Yea        Nay      Present 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUILLEN................................         X   .........  .........
DREIER.................................         X   .........  .........
GOSS...................................         X   .........  .........
LINDER.................................         X   .........  .........
PRYCE..................................         X   .........  .........
DIAZ-BALART............................         X   .........  .........
McINNIS................................         X   .........  .........
WALDHOLTZ..............................         X   .........  .........
MOAKLEY................................  .........         X   .........
BEILENSON..............................  .........         X   .........
FROST..................................  .........  .........  .........
HALL...................................  .........         X   .........
SOLOMON................................         X   .........  .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). It is the prerogative of the 
Chair to welcome back the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], 
the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Rules. The 
gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 30 minutes.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. 
Linder], my dear friend, for yielding me the customary half-hour, and I 
yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very honored to be back at the leadership table 
today doing my part on behalf of every American who does not want their 
Medicare benefits cut to pay for the tax cuts for the very, very rich.
  Mr. Speaker, I heard 7 hours of testimony in the Committee on Rules 
yesterday and I still cannot understand why anyone on Earth would 
propose such a horrible, horrible idea.
  Mr. Speaker, 40 million elderly Americans rely on Medicare, but my 
Republican colleagues still insist on using Medicare as a slush fund 
for tax breaks. I can tell my colleagues that I was not sent to 
Congress to do that.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to make something very clear. This bill will 
hurt. This bill will hurt and it means that senior citizens' premiums 
increase about $400, but they will have to give up their own private 
doctors.
  Where I come from, if you pay more, you should get more. But not 
today, Mr. Speaker. This bill takes health benefits from Grandma, from 
Grandpa, and hands them over to the richest Americans in the forms of a 
nice, big, juicy, fat tax break.
  Republicans are not cutting Medicare to save it. Republicans are not 
cutting Medicare to protect senior citizens. Republicans are cutting 
Medicare to fill that big, big hole left in our Nation's wallet after 
their tax break for the very rich.
  Mr. Speaker, at a time when we should be immunizing more of our 
children, at a time when we should be 

[[Page H 10318]]
training more of our health workers, at a time when we should be 
working together to make this country as competitive and caring as it 
can be, this bill leaves thousands and thousands of senior citizens out 
in the cold.
  Mr. Speaker, this will cripple our fine medical schools, our 
outstanding teaching hospitals, our research facilities, and the health 
of the entire country will ultimately suffer.
  Mr. Speaker, senior citizens need their health care a lot more than 
the very, very rich need another tax break. Take it from me, Mr. 
Speaker, senior citizens need their health care a lot more than the 
very, very rich need other things.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is wrong. It is wrong. It is wrong. So, I ask 
my colleague to defeat the previous question and oppose this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 4 
minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], chairman of the 
Committee on Rules.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, let me take a moment to welcome back my 
colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley]. Mr. Speaker, 
I would say to the gentleman that he has not changed a bit, and it is a 
pleasure to have him back here.
  Mr. Speaker, let me also take a moment to thank the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Linder], who is managing this rule, and the other members 
of the Committee on Rules, for supporting this rule. Because, by voting 
for this rule, my colleagues are voting to give greater equity to the 
rural hospitals in America. That means more money to rural hospitals 
because they are so pressed right now for financial assistance: This 
rule will go a long way toward helping them. So, I thank the Committee 
on Rules for supporting it.
  Mr. Speaker, last month I turned 65 years of age and am now a 
contributing member of the Medicare system. On behalf of myself and my 
constituents, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer], 
the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], and other members of their 
committees for this bill, which not only saves the existing system from 
bankruptcy, but guarantees there will be Medicare protection for the 
elderly for many years to come with no ``Band-Aid fix'' as is usually 
the case, here in Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, I have been hearing from several different groups of 
people who are legitimately concerned about how this reform affects 
them. First, there is a group already retired on Medicare. They can 
stay in the system exactly as they are or they can buy another private 
health policy and Medicare will give them up to $4,800 to help pay for 
it. That is important for those people on Medicare today to know.
  Second, there is a group ready to retire that has no current 
insurance. They can retire, join the existing Medicare Program, or they 
can choose a private health plan and Medicare will give them $4,800 to 
pay for it.
  Then there is a group, and I think this is a group that I represent 
back home because they are working Americans. They work for firms like 
GE and IBM, International Paper Co. or the State of New York or local 
government. They have health coverage through their employer.
  Under this new plan, they can retire tomorrow, either join the 
current Medicare Program or they can continue the policy they have now 
with their current employer and Medicare will contribute up to $4,800 
to help pay for it. That gives great relief to those people.
  Last, there is a group of small businessmen, like farmers, and I 
represent maybe the 20th largest dairy producing district in America, 
who currently buy a Blue Cross-Blue Shield plan or a private plan, but 
when they retire tomorrow their income goes down and they no longer can 
afford the same policy. Mr. Speaker, under this plan they can either:
  One, join the existing Medicare Program as it is today or, two, 
continue to buy the health policy they have today and Medicare will 
contribute up to $4,800 toward the cost of that policy.
  Mr. Speaker, last weekend I sat home and I randomly called over 100 
constituents from all of these categories I mentioned above and you 
know what? After I explained this new program, without using terms like 
Medisave, Medigap, or MedicarePlus, when I explained it to them in 
layman's language, almost every one of them said they were relieved and 
they thanked me for what we are doing to save Medicare today.
  So, on behalf of my constituents, I want to thank the two committees 
for the great job that they have done. They really are saving this 
system for the elderly for years to come.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Frost], an outstanding member of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, at 10 o'clock last night the Committee on 
Rules was called back into session to rewrite this rule. Now, what was 
going on? The Republicans are desperate to find votes to promote their 
$245 billion tax cut for the wealthy.
  Look in today's New York Times. ``For Republicans in the House, a 
Frantic Vote Trading Bazaar,'' and I want to quote from this.

       Today the office of Speaker Newt Gingrich became a kind of 
     bazaar as lawmakers trouped in seeking concessions and Mr. 
     Gingrich tried to please them. The bargaining was a little 
     like Christmas shopping, as Republican lawmakers searched for 
     gifts. To help pay for the sweeteners for the rural 
     lawmakers, this is what they did. They decided not to expand 
     Medicare coverage of chiropractor services and not to pay for 
     drugs needed to combat nausea caused by certain anticancer 
     drugs.

                              {time}  1000

  A bazaar, a trading session, simply to be able to find enough votes 
to put through this plan, to cut Medicare by $270 billion.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman will state his 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Since we had no hearings in the Committee on Ways and 
Means, I want to clarify what document we are dealing with.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, that is not that parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Wait and listen to my parliamentary inquiry.
  We had a bill introduced, H.R. 2425, in the committee. Then we had a 
substitute of 435 pages that was dropped on us the day of the first 
meeting.
  Mr. LINDER. Point of order.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Then we have a bill identified as Union Calendar 145, 
H.R. 2425, which is 900 pages----
  Mr. LINDER. Point of order.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Which is 900 pages, which has never had a hearing, and 
now we have H.R. 2485. Are there any other----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington will suspend.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Are there any other changes before us----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington will suspend.
  The gentleman from Georgia will state his point of order.


                             POINT OF ORDER

  Mr. LINDER. Point of order. Is that a parliamentary inquiry or a 
speech?
  Mr. McDERMOTT. I think asking the Chair what we are considering is 
basically a parliamentary inquiry. We are out here as a parliament to 
deal with law. The question is, What we are dealing with?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will read from the rule:

       An amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of 
     the text of H.R. 2485, modified by the amendment printed in 
     the report of the committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution, shall be considered as adopted in the House and 
     in the committee of the whole. The bill, as amended, shall be 
     considered as the original bill for the purpose of further 
     amendment under the 5-minute rule.

  Mr. McDERMOTT. Can the Chair tell us, are there any changes between 
the H.R. 2425, which came out of the committees, and H.R. 2485, which 
was used in the Committee on Rules last night?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair cannot further respond.


                         PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY

  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I have a further parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. DINGELL. Could the Chair tell us which of the documents that have 
been coming forth so profusely is to be used today for consideration of 
the legislation?

[[Page H 10319]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The response from the Chair is that the 
Chair has just ruled on that.
  The gentleman from Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 3 
minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Pryce], our colleague on the 
Committee on Rules.
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, this is a historic day in the House of 
Representatives, and I am pleased to rise in strong support of this 
rule for the Medicare Preservation Act.
  Throughout the past year, we have made every effort to alert the 
American people, and seniors in particular, that we are facing a 
serious crisis.
  Medicare is growing at an unsustainable rate, and retirement of the 
baby boomers is just around the corner. Unless decisive action is taken 
now, the Medicare system will collapse. With the health of 34 million 
senior citizens at stake, we can't delay any longer. The time has come 
for Congress to act responsibly and courageously, in the face of all 
the rhetoric and politics as usual.
  After months of congressional hearings and meetings with senior 
citizens, doctors, hospitals, and health care experts, Congress has 
crafted a plan that will prevent Medicare's bankruptcy and give seniors 
the peace of mind they deserve as they look forward to their retirement 
years.
  Our committees have developed a serious response to the Medicare 
crisis, one which not only promises solvency of the program, but offers 
seniors the right to choose their health care plan, including the right 
to stay in the traditional Medicare system.
  What this plan is about is change, and change long overdue. The 
current Medicare program is a 1965 Blue Cross/Blue Shield health care 
plan codified into law. But just like stereos, computers, or cars, 
health care plans have seen a lot of innovation in the last 30 years.
  Here and now in 1995, you can still drive a 1965 Chevy, but there are 
a lot of new models out there with cruise control, air bags, and 
automatic locks. For the first time in 30 years, this proposal gives 
seniors the opportunity to choose a newer model, but we're also saying, 
if you want to keep your 1965 plan, if you want to keep on driving your 
favorite 1965 Chevy, that's all right--it's now your decision, not the 
Government's.
  This plan is honest and sincere. There is no hidden agenda. It's all 
there, up front, in black and white for the American people to see--no 
fine print, nothing between the lines.
  Our plan will simplify and strengthen Medicare, while finally giving 
seniors the same choices we all have.
  Saving Medicare is not just a slogan or a political strategy. Rather, 
it is a moral obligation to our seniors and to future generations. We 
are committed to this challenge, and with this rule and the bill it 
makes in order, we are keeping our promise to the American people to 
put Medicare on a sound financial footing.
  Mr. Speaker, let us save Medicare. I urge my colleagues to support 
this fair rule and to bring this country Medicare that is guaranteed to 
survive.


                             point of order

  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order that a quorum is 
not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair does not need to entertain that at 
this point.
  Mr. GIBBONS. When will the Chair entertain such a motion? There is 
obviously not a quorum present, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, you know, you are the Speaker pro tempore. The Speaker 
is off selling books somewhere today. There is obviously a quorum not 
present. Any camera can see a quorum is not present. Why can I not make 
a point of order if a quorum is not present?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under rule XV, clause 6(e) the Chair cannot 
entertain such a point of order during debate.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] has 26 minutes 
remaining and is recognized.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Gibbons], the ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Ways and Means, who has done an outstanding job trying to keep the 
priorities of the Congress going in the right direction.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I have seen a lot of outrages in my 33 
years, but this tops it all. I will not compare it to the attack on 
Pearl Harbor. I was in the Army in the attack on Pearl Harbor. It was 
not a joke. I lost a lot of friends and a lot of colleagues. But this 
is a stealth attack of terrible proportions.
  Mr. Speaker, there is only one reason that we are having this gag 
rule today. Yesterday, the Republicans spent 4 hours on shrimp, 4 hours 
on shrimp. Today we are spending 3 hours on 40 million people's 
benefits, $270 billion. Now, that is the Republican priority in this 
Congress: 4 hours on shrimp, 3 hours on Medicare.
  There is obviously not a quorum present. I do not know where the 
Members are. I wish they were here because what we have to say is 
important.
  I want to try to follow up what was just said here about the razzle 
dazzle that is going on about these bills. This is the bill that was 
finally reported by the Committee on Ways and Means after two or three 
substitutes by the chairman. It is not worth a hoot. It is 900-and-some 
pages long and had already been discarded. This is the bill that was 
adopted by the Committee on Rules last night. It was referred to the 
Committee on Ways and Means. It was referred to the Committee on 
Commerce. It never saw the light of day in either one of those 
committees, but yet it was reported by the Committee on Rules. It is 
471 pages long. The other one is 900 pages long.
  Then we are adopting a rule here today that makes two more changes. 
Now I am told by staff that there are 17 changes in this bill that have 
never been considered by any committee in this Congress. Nobody has 
ever seen them. This is Newt's bargaining package. This is what he 
bought his Republican votes on.
  Then, to add insult to injury, there are two more amendments to this 
bill, that has never been read by anybody, in this rule that we are 
adopting today.
  I have seen a lot of razzle dazzle, I say to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Solomon] in this Congress in 33 years, but you and your 
Committee on Rules and Newt Gingrich top it all.
  For what purpose? For one purpose only: To get old people to take 
$270 billion out of their pockets and give it to your rich 
contributors.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GIBBONS. No. You cut us off. You did not give us any time. Newt 
Gingrich did not give us any time to debate here. Why should I yield to 
you?
  Mr. SOLOMON. Well, you are still my friend.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the outstanding 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], the ranking minority member of 
the Committee on Commerce.
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, this is a bad rule and a bad bill. I urge 
my colleagues to defeat the previous question, to defeat the rule and 
defeat the bill.
  The process here has been an abomination. It has been an insult to 
the American people. There have been no hearings on this bill. There 
have been constant changes in its language. There have been constant 
backroom deals cut to benefit special interests.
  Committee amendments have been disappearing from the final text, and 
now a gag rule is before us permitting only one amendment.
  Republicans say we need this bill to save Medicare. Do not believe 
it. There is only one reason that this bill is required, and that is to 
provide tax cuts for the rich, financed at the expense of senior 
citizens and Medicare recipients.
  The committee never had a minute's hearings on this legislation. No 
committee did.
  The bill has undergone constant changes. We have Democratic 
substitutes here which will not have an opportunity to be considered. 
There are proposals in this bill that have been sneaked in in the dark 
of night, and no Member knows what they might contain.
  I urge rejection of this gag rule.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

[[Page H 10320]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Under this rule, as it is proposed, is the new rule of 
the House requiring a three-fifths' vote on tax increases before any 
tax increase can go into effect, is that rule being suspended under 
this rule so that this will be a tax increase that does not comply with 
the new rules of the House?
  I realize it is to provide tax cuts, but does it not have a tax 
increase?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would refer the gentleman from 
Texas to the last sentence of the rule.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Does that permit a suspension of the three-fifths rule 
to allow a tax increase to go into effect without a three-fifths' vote?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is the rule being waived relating to 
income tax rate increases.
  Mr. DOGGETT. I thank the Chair very much.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Conyers], who has worked very diligently on this matter.
  (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extent his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, we come here on a rule that handles the 
issues that fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee on the 
Judiciary that are the most important economic matters in this 
Congress, massive antitrust exemptions that will allow doctors to fix 
and inhibit the prices of their competitors, radical medical 
malpractice and product liability changes for the first time that will 
intrude on the States' rights to protect their citizens against 
negligence, wholesale rewrites of the antifraud laws that will make it 
almost impossible to prosecute Medicare fraud committee by doctors, and 
yet we have had no debate on any of these matters.
  The chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Archer], cut off debate in that committee, saying the 
Committee on the Judiciary would resolve them. The chairman of the 
Committee on the Judiciary has never held hearings on this, and Speaker 
Gingrich discharged the Committee on the Judiciary from consideration.
  Ten days on Waco in Committee on the Judiciary, 8 days on 
immigration, no days on Medicare fraud.
  I rise in strong opposition to this outrageous rule.
  Later today this House will be considering one of the most far-
reaching and punitive pieces of legislation in the history of this 
Nation. The bill has been negotiated behind closed doors directly with 
special interests and only peeks its head above water occasionally, 
only to be changed and revised through massive and complex substitutes 
further tailored to suit the needs of powerful special interests.
  And today our right to debate the merits of this legislation has been 
all but eliminated. Why should we expect to have any sort of meaningful 
public debate--we all know the only place this bill can be debated is 
behind closed doors with the AMA and other special interests. The 
Republicans are in such a rush to go home to explain this sellout to 
their constituents, they didn't have time to allow for a meaningful 
debate on the actual legislation.
  The issues which fall within the jurisdiction of the Judiciary 
Committee rank among the most important economic matters we will see 
this Congress: Massive new antitrust exemptions that will allow doctors 
to fix prices inhibit their competitors; radical medical malpractice 
and product liability changes that will for the first time ever intrude 
on the States' rights to protect their citizens against negligence; and 
wholesale rewrites of our antifraud laws that will make it almost 
impossible to prosecute Medicare fraud committed by doctors.
  Amazingly, we in the Congress will go through this process having had 
no debate whatsoever on the merits of these broad-ranging proposals. 
When the antitrust and malpractice issues were raised in the Ways and 
Means Committee, Chairman Archer cut off debate by saying that the 
Judiciary Committee would resolve them. Yet Chairman Hyde refused to 
hold a hearing or a markup, Speaker Gingrich discharged the committee 
from consideration, and the Rules Committee ruled all of our amendments 
out of order. We've held 10 days of hearings on Waco, 8 days of markup 
on immigration, and no hearings or markup on the antitrust, medical 
malpractice, and antifraud provisions in the Medicare bill.
  So we have the absurd situation where the only group which is 
permitted to write and debate important changes to the antitrust, 
medical malpractice, and antifraud laws are the special interests--not 
the Congress. Now I know why the majority keeps putting off gift and 
lobby reform. Obviously they needed to finish this bill--the largest 
legislative giveaway of all time--before they can even consider 
lobbying reform.
  I urge the Members to defeat this rule and restore a level of sanity 
and reasonableness back into the legislative process.

                              {time}  1015

  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Rangel], a real fine Member who has lived firsthand with this 
very, very terrible situation that we see in some of the nursing homes 
in the State of New York.
  (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, there comes a point where shame has to be an 
issue that has to be discussed. No one knows better than I how 
important a campaign promise is, and I recognize when you promise $245 
billion to those who support the goals and aims of the Republican 
Party, that you must keep that promise.
  The question is, have you no shame in how far you go to raise the 
money? Student loans, school lunches, housing for the poor. And now we 
are talking about the crown jewel. The crown jewel is not $245 billion 
in tax cuts. The crown jewel is aged Americans, those who raised their 
families and their grandchildren, those that believed in the American 
dream, those that thought if they took care of their's, that our 
country would take care of them.
  I know, Republicans have fought Medicare from the inception. Every 
time it comes up, you have always been there, always been there, to 
vote it down. And here you come again, where hospitals that service the 
poorest of the poor, in the rural areas, in the inner-cities, where 
they have no support system, there you are reducing the benefits.
  People get up here time and time again saying that is just not so. 
Well, why do you not go to the hospital people and ask them why they 
believe you are destroying them? Why do you not go to those in the 
nursing homes and ask why they are so frightened? And why are we not 
able to say that there is nothing wrong with that trust fund that $90 
billion would not take care of?
  If you are so concerned about the Medicare bill, and this will be new 
to my Republican majority friends, it would be brand new, it would be 
making history, that you were concerned about the Medicare bill, all 
you have to do is cut your tax bill by $90 billion, throw it over there 
and fix the trust fund, and set up a commission to do the rest.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Traficant] the friend of labor, the friend of the elderly.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the rule; another choice should 
have been put in order. I will oppose the bill; it is simply not the 
best. But I do not agree with the politics being played here today, the 
spin to win, regardless of the consequences. Depicting Newt Gingrich as 
Darth Vader and Republicans as two-headed monsters may seem to be good 
democratic politics, but it is bad public policy for America.
  Congress spends too much time on motive and not enough time on 
substance. The important issue today is not whether Republicans win or 
the Democrats win. Medicare should be fixed. Medicare is in trouble, 
and I believe that we should address that issue.
  I oppose the bill. It is simply not the best we could fashion.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, looking at the last sentence on page 3 of 
the rule, the waiver of clause 5 of rule XXI, am I correct that this is 
the provision that requires three-fifths of the Members to approve any 
tax increase on final passage?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct about an income tax 
rate increase.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, what is the reason that this provision is in 
the resume, if the Chair could respond?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair cannot speculate on that.
  
[[Page H 10321]]

  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, presumably it must be because there is a tax 
rate increase in the bill. Otherwise, there would be no point in having 
this waiver.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will point out again that the 
provision is in the rule, as has been read.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Payne].
  Mr. PAYNE of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to 
this rule, because all year long, every time that someone from this 
side of the aisle has come down to criticize or even talk about the 
Republican plan, we were met with the same response: ``Where is your 
Medicare plan,'' they said, ``and what will you do to save Medicare?''
  Well, Mr. Speaker, those of us from the Democratic Conservative 
Coalition came up with a plan to protect Medicare and the 37 million 
people it serves. What was the response of the Republican majority? 
They gagged us. The Committee on Rules will not even permit our plan to 
be heard on this floor today.
  Let me tell my colleagues what they are missing. We put together a 
Medicare reform plan that is not driven by a promise to cut taxes, but 
by the need to create efficiency, choice, and personal responsibility. 
The coalition's plan is a solid, middle-ground plan. It combines long-
term structural reforms with reasonable cost savings to ensure 
Medicare's long-term solvency. Our Medicare reform plan provides $100 
billion more for Medicare than does the Republican plan in the next 7 
years.
  There are four other good reasons why we should hear this plan today. 
The coalition's plan contains substantive Medicare reforms designed to 
promote efficiency and fairness. It contains provisions to protect 
beneficiaries. It does more to protect our rural hospitals than does 
the Republican plan. Finally, we meet our obligation to ensure the 
solvency of the Medicare Program.
  For 30 years, Medicare has served the elderly and disabled of this 
country. Because of Medicare, many fewer older Americans live in 
poverty today than 30 years ago, and all have a better quality of life 
because of Medicare.
  We need to be thoughtful and deliberative in our approach to Medicare 
reform, and that is what our coalition bill does. It is a travesty that 
this bill will not be heard on this floor today, and I urge a no vote 
on this rule.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield for the purpose of 
debate only 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], a 
member of the Committee on Rules.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Georgia [Mr. Linder], 
for yielding and congratulate him for a marvelous job in managing this 
rule.
  Mr. Speaker, the quality and the quantity of debate we had all day 
yesterday in the Rules Committee underscores the importance of the 
Medicare Program and the high level of interest it holds for all 
Members. This rule is fair and reasonable. By way of comparison, when 
the Medicare Program was first created 30 years ago, there were no 
amendments allowed, other than technical changes proposed by the Ways 
and Means Committee. Today's rule allows the minority two opportunities 
to present alternative reform plans--so let's cut out this nonsense 
about process.
  Mr. Speaker, the history of this moment should not be lost on us. We 
have a bedrock program that affects the most personal aspect of the 
lives of tens of millions of Americans--but we all know Medicare part A 
is a health care program that is headed over the cliff to oblivion of 
bankruptcy in a few short years. The Republican majority, well aware of 
the risks of losing the rhetorical war to the scaremongers, nonetheless 
has stepped up to our commitment to preserve, protect, and improve 
Medicare. We offer opportunity for more choice, more access, less cost. 
Repeatedly newspapers like the Washington Post and the New York Times 
have commended us for taking on this tough challenge. As yesterday's 
New York Times made clear, we are not ducking our responsibility of 
governance. We are not employing an oft-used technique of the 
Democrates in packaging this vote within a larger bill to shield 
Members from the so-called tough votes. We are going to pass this bill 
because our constituents want us to save the Medicare program, not just 
for today's seniors, but for their children and their grandchildren. 
That's the moral imperative we have before us. And I think, as 
Americans listen carefully to the details of what this legislation does 
they'll like what they hear. That's what polls show. They'll find that 
the scare tactics have been overblown and misleading--``medabobury'' as 
the Washington Post calls it. Choose our plan. Under our plan seniors 
who are happy with the current system can keep what they have now. 
Those who think they can get a better program from a health maintenance 
organization or a medical savings account, will have those options to 
choose from. Despite some claims to the contrary, we are tackling the 
major problems of fraud and abuse, which, by the way, are among the 
biggest complaints seniors have about the Medicare program. This bill 
provides incentives for seniors to report fraud and it doubles the 
penalties on those who cheat the system. And we have seen to it that 
this rule takes us even further, incorporating critical anti-fraud and 
abuse proposals drafted by our colleague, former prosecutor Steve 
Schiff. The Schiff language beefs up enforcement, increases civil 
penalties and fines, and, most importantly, establishes health care 
fraud as a Federal felony. Mr. Speaker, I served as a member of the 
Kerrey Commission on Entitlement Reform. We grappled with the fact that 
doing nothing means disaster for Medicare and all entitlements. Today 
we step up to our responsibility and offer positive action to avert 
that crisis. I hope my colleagues will join me in doing the right thing 
for Medicare, for America.

  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Doggett] who has a presentation.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, you know, unless you are a special interest with a swarm 
of lobbyists, you have very little to smile about with reference to 
this Republican pay-more, get-less plan. But I think I have found 
something to give you a smile with. It is a painting that I think 
captures it all. It captures the raw truth of this Republican plan, a 
painting by a great American artist, William Harnett, known for the 
remarkable precision of his painting, who gave in this particular 
painting a meticulous examination of the physical reality of a lowly 
object. It is called ``Plucked Clean,'' and that is what is happening 
to American seniors. A chicken carcass against the wall, plucked clean.
  I do not suggest that the Republicans were chicken about hiding this 
plan. If you has a plan this sorry, you would hide it too. What I am 
concerned about and why I think ``Plucked Clean'' summarizes this plan 
is that seniors are being plucked clean, a feather today, a feather 
here, really all about destroying the Medicare system.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 1 
minute to the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff].
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule. I want to 
thank and acknowledge the Committee on Rules for making as a part of 
this rule my proposed amendment to strengthen the prosecution of health 
care fraud as part of the rule that will be enacted with the adoption 
of the rule.
  The language that I offered in my amendment is not new language. It 
can be found as part of H.R. 2326, a bill I developed with the 
gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays], chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Human Resources of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.
  This bill, which deals with health care fraud, has bipartisan 
cosponsorship. This provision builds on the provisions already included 
by the gentleman from California, Chairman Thomas, in the first draft 
of the Medicare bill, which includes provisions such as a trust fund to 
help support additional investigations and prosecutions of health care 
providers.
  My amendment in particular would first make health care fraud a 
crime, regardless of whether through fraud, embezzlement, false 
statements, or bribery and kickbacks.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Arkansas [Mrs. Lincoln].

[[Page H 10322]]

  (Mrs. LINCOLN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, my voice may be lost here in the roaring sea of petty, 
partisan politics, but I think the American people need to know that in 
this discussion and in this argument, they are the ones that are being 
forgotten.
  It has been said, ``Be careful what you ask for, for you may get 
it.'' The Republicans asked us to give them an alternative to their 
plan to cut $270 billion from Medicare. The Conservative Democratic 
Coalition delivered. We gave them a plan that will guarantee Medicare 
solvency and balance the budget by 2002. Our plan will reduce Medicare 
by $100 billion less than the Republican plan.
  Now that we have given them what they have asked for, they will not 
give House Members the chance to vote on our plan. The coalition's plan 
is more reasonable and fair to strengthen Medicare than the two plans 
that will be voted on here today.
  I like the way my colleague from Minnesota, Mr. Sabo, explained it. 
It bears repeating. If our plan was ruled in order, House members would 
have three choices. No. 1, vote for $90 billion in cuts to ensure 
solvency until 2006, but do nothing to balance the budget. No. 2, vote 
for the coalition's plan to ensure solvency of Medicare for future 
generations, while balancing the budget by 2002. That will reduce 
Medicare by $100 billion less than the Republican plan. Or, No. 3, vote 
for the Republican plan to cut $270 billion from Medicare, paying for a 
tax cut, while balancing the budget by 2002.

  The first option does not cut enough to really take care of the 
problem. The third option cuts too much, digging into the pockets of 
senior citizens and rural health care providers and hospitals.
  The second option, however, the coalition's plan, is the solution 
between the two extremes, what the American people are looking for. 
Republicans leaders asked us not to criticize unless we could offer a 
better plan, and we did.

                              {time}  1030

  Now they will not allow us to bring our plan to the floor for a vote, 
and I suspect that might be because ours is the most reasonable plan 
and it would probably get the most votes. But the senior citizens in 
the first district of Arkansas and the young people who will be on 
Medicare in the future have asked us to quit playing petty politics and 
do the right thing. I hope we can.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Klink].
  Mr. KLINK. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote no against this 
rule. First of all, in the Committee on Commerce we were given a bill 
that was 420 some pages, and then the next day we saw a bill that was 
430 some pages, then we were given a bill that was 470 some pages, when 
we arrived here this week we got a bill that was over 900 pages, and 
now we have a bill that is, again, almost a thousand pages and on none 
of these bills did we have a chance to have a hearing. No hearings on 
this.
  No Members know what it is they are going to be voting on today 
because they have not had a chance to read it. This rule and the strict 
limit of debate are designed simply to push through a hysterical bill, 
not historic but hysterical bill, that will not stand up to the light 
of day, that will not stand up to public debate, that will not stand up 
to scrutiny, that will not stand up to an open amendment process.
  Mr. Speaker, this process is very simply designed to pass a 
horrendous piece of legislation in time to make the 6 o'clock news 
tonight.
  I think the symbolism of this was not lost when last week as 15 
senior citizens came into our committee and tried to inquire as to why 
there were no hearings they were led away. They were handcuffed and the 
lights were turned off. Indeed, this whole system has been done in the 
dark.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time remains?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. 
Linder] has 9\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] has 12 minutes remaining.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule 
and in strong opposition to this bill which will cut $270 billion from 
Medicare to pay for a tax cut to the wealthy. This bill is a bad deal 
for seniors. It means seniors will see their premiums increase and 
their benefits decrease. For seniors this plan should be called the 
pay-more-get-less plan.
  It is a good deal for the special interests. Last week Newt Gingrich 
bought off the doctors' lobby with a $3 billion back-room deal. Under 
this plan, seniors, on fixed incomes, will pay more while doctors with 
a 6-figure incomes will make more.
  Mr. Speaker, 30 years ago another Congress made a pact with our 
seniors, it said never again would they have to worry that one accident 
or one illness will wipe out their life's savings. This Congress has no 
right to break that sacred pact. Vote no on a $270 billion Medicare cut 
to pay for a $245 billion tax break.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Peterson].
  (Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I hope that the American 
people are listening to what the Members of the coalition are saying 
today because the political parties in Washington are not listening. 
They are, once again, putting bills on the floor to achieve their 
partisan political ends. The coalition has a bill that is going to fix 
the Medicare System and do it in the right way, and we are not even 
going to be allowed to have a vote on that bill on the floor of the 
House today, and I think it is an outrage.
  I give credit to my Democratic colleagues. They put a bill together 
that fixes the part A problem with Medicare. The problem is they have 
ignored the problem in the part B part of the system. Frankly, we think 
it needs to be fixed if we are to have a sustainable situation here 
that will not come back to haunt us within our hospital system and 
within the senior citizens.
  On the other side, the Republicans have put together a bill that goes 
further than we think they can sustain. We do not think what they have 
in this bill is achievable, and, frankly, they have this hundred 
billion dollars extra in this bill so they can pay for the tax cut 
which Members of the coalition, by the way, support. We just think it 
should be put off until after we get the budget balanced, and we think 
this is where the American people are as well.
  Mr. Speaker, our bill, as I said, picks up the fixes to part A, but 
we also do the fixes that need to be made in part B, and we also do the 
things that need to be done to make the rural health part of the system 
work. Yesterday the Republicans made an attempt to fix the rural health 
part of the bill and what they found out happened, as some of their 
Members are telling me, is they will have hospitals in their district 
that will have money taken away from them to pay for other hospitals in 
their district. One of those Members said 25 of his counties will lose, 
22 are going to gain.
  Mr. Speaker, that is no kind of fix. The reason they are in this 
problem is they have rates of growth in their bill that are too low, 
that is not realistic, and that is why they cannot make this work. We 
think it is really an outrage, one more time, that we have two extreme 
positions, that are not the right positions, and we will not have the 
opportunity to vote on the right position until next week. We urge the 
defeat of this rule.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Miller].
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, today we are going to have a 
historic debate and vote on one of the most important issues facing 
senior citizens and that is Medicare. We have been debating the issue 
for 3 years and now we are finally going to have a chance to really 
make good reforms in the program.
  We have a good program. I am proud of this program. It is a good 
program for our senior citizens. We agree with so many things that our 
colleagues on the other side are talking about. We 

[[Page H 10323]]
agree Medicare is going bankrupt and we need to save it. Where we 
disagree is we do not want to have just a Band-Aid to fix it for a year 
or so, we want to fix it before the baby bommers retire in the year 
2010.
  We want to give choices. And it is amazing why the people on the 
other side are opposed to choices. We have choice as a Member of 
Congress. Every year we get to have a choice of plans, just like all 
other Federal employees. We are in the same plan with the Department of 
Agriculture employees and Department of Commerce and such. We get to 
choose. What is wrong with choice? What is wrong with giving people the 
right to choose?
  Mr. Speaker, we are going to give people the right to stay in the 
plan now. My 86-year-old mother will not change, and there is no reason 
to make her change. People can stay in the current plan. Those that 
want to choose a medical savings account, great, let them choose it. 
Those that want to go in managed care, great, let them choose it.
  Why not let local doctors and local hospitals who deliver the care to 
their local communities offer their own program? What is wrong with 
that? Why deny choice? Why is this one-size-fits-all in Washington the 
rule that has to be kept? Why not give choice?
  We are increasing spending every year. We talk about $270 billion in 
cuts. Let us look at how much we are increasing it. Whether the glass 
is half full or half empty, we are increasing spending on Medicare by 
$354 billion over 7 years compared to the last 7 years. That goes from 
$4,800 to $6,700. That is an increase.
  Mr. Speaker, we have a good bill that is going to make Medicare a 
better program for our seniors.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].
  (Mrs. CLAYTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, America has reason to be concerned. They 
call it Mediscare, we call it Medicare.
  They want to cut corners, we want to cut sickness.
  They believe Government should not carry the disabled, we believe the 
disabled can carry themselves--if given a chance.
  They want those with money to get more wealth, we want those without 
money to have an equal chance--at health.
  They refuse to hear those who disagree with them, we want decisions 
to be made with all the facts. And, we want to know what's in that 
1,000-page bill.
  They want to tighten the belt and strangle our senior citizens and 
their families, we want enough room to include everyone, especially 
those in need.
  For themselves, they want hospitals just moments away, for many in 
rural America, we simply want hospitals.
  They say Medicare cuts are not funding the tax cut, we ask, What is?
  Mr. Speaker, the voice of the American people was not heard before 
the committees of Congress when they briefly considered these radical 
changes in the Medicare Program.
  The majority conducted a 1-day hearing on their proposal to cut the 
Medicare Program by $270 billion.
  And, when those most directly affected by these cuts came to Congress 
to raise their voices of appeal--they were not heard--they were forced 
to raise their hands so that they could be handcuffed and arrested.
  Perhaps that is because they want us to ignore the impact of this 
$270 billion cut upon the heart and soul of our Nation--rural America.
  This bill makes the most sweeping changes in the Medicare Program 
since it was first created more than 30 years ago.
  Citizens of rural America have incomes that are 33 percent--yes, one-
third--lower than their urban counterparts.
  The elderly who live in rural areas are 60 percent more likely to 
live in poverty--60 percent.
  Through this Medicare Preservation Act, Medicare funds for rural 
Americans will be cut by at least $58 billion.
  The $270 billion cut translates into at least $45 billion less for 
the health care for impoverished, disabled, or elderly Americans in 
rural areas--and translates into $70 billion less for hospitals.
  For Pitt County Memorial Hospital, one of the finest university 
medical centers in rural areas, this cut translates into a $621 million 
loss--$621 million less for needed medical care.
  For Nash General Hospital, $234 billion less in the same time period.
  For the Craven Regional Medical Center, $211 billion less--and I 
could go on and on and on.
  The bill cuts $54.5 billion from payments to health care providers.
  Twenty-five percent of rural hospitals already operate at a loss, and 
that is because Medicare alone accounts for almost 40 percent of the 
average hospital's net patient revenue.
  This bill, that is thicker than Webster's dictionary, cuts funding 
for teaching hospitals, reduces payments for nursing homes--and, fails 
to dedicate most of the cuts to the Medicare trust fund.
  Can you imagine the devastation that these cuts will cause to rural 
areas?
  Hospitals are certain to close--doctors will become scarce--rural 
Americans will go without health care.
  We call it Medicare, they call it Mediscare. Mr. Speaker, America has 
reason to fear.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining on 
each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Linder] has 
7\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Moakley] has 8 minutes remaining.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays].
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, 
and I just wanted to say that I oppose the Medicare bill described by 
the Democrats. It is an outrageous bill as described by the Democrats, 
but that is not our bill.
  Democrats are saying, regretfully, we want copayments. We do not want 
copayments. There are no copayments. They say we want deductibles. 
There are no increases in deductibles. They say we increased the 
premium, and the premium stays at 31\1/2\ percent. The taxpayer will 
continue to pay 68\1/2\ percent.
  Mr. Speaker, we have three main goals as this Republican majority. We 
want to get the financial house in order and balance our budget. We 
want to save our trust funds. We want to protect, preserve, and 
strengthen them. And we want to transform this social corporate farming 
welfare state into an opportunity society. We are going to do that, but 
we must save our trust fund, it is going bankrupt, and we will.
  How do we do it? No new taxes. We do not affect beneficiaries. We 
affect providers and we change the system. We are transforming the 
system, allowing people to keep what they have or we are allowing them 
to get into private care. We are giving them choice. We are allowing 
them to have the same kind of health care that we as Federal employees 
have. We are giving them the choice they asked for.
  Mr. Speaker, we are doing it without cutting the program. We are 
increasing it. We are going to spend $600 billion more of new money. 
Not $300 billion, $600 billion more. It will go from $4800 per 
beneficiary to $6700 per beneficiary. Only in Washington when we spend 
50 percent more do people call it a cut.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Durbin], a distinguished member of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, for those who cannot stay tuned to this 
expensive debate today, because of the Republican rule we have 3 hours 
to debate a $270 billion cut in Medicare. That is a billion and a half 
a minute. If people cannot stay tuned, I will tell them what will 
happen.
  The Democrats who created Medicare will lose today. The Republicans, 
under the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich], will ram through a 
$270 billion cut that will increase premiums for seniors to the tune of 
$400 a year and it will end up giving the wealthiest 1 percent in 
America a $19,000 annual tax break.
  But do not lose heart. Seniors may be glum tonight, the special 
interests will be dancing in Washington, but we are counting on the 
President of the United States to veto this monstrosity, to 

[[Page H 10324]]
bring us back to the table for a bipartisan, common sense approach to 
really save Medicare.
  Mr. Speaker, the real winners not only have to be seniors and their 
families, we have to tell the special interests to get out of the 
business of wrecking Medicare, get out of the business of tax breaks 
for the wealthy. Let us make Medicare a solid system. Let us not make 
it a piggy bank for the wealthy.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke].
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, 
and I rise in strong support of this rule and the Medicare Preservation 
Act to save Medicare from bankruptcy, preserve it for the current 
retirees and protect it for the future.
  Now we have heard so much demagoguery medigoguery from the other side 
of the aisle on this bill for the past 6 months, and it would take 
weeks to answer every erroneous charge and accusation. I would like to 
focus on one particularly disingenuous argument we have heard 
constantly and it is that the Medicare trustees have said that saving 
Medicare will require only $89 billion in savings.
  First, the Medicare trustees in their report did not recommend a 
specific savings level necessary to prevent Medicare from becoming 
insolvent. Their only conclusion was that the plan was going bankrupt 
and that swift and decisive action should be taken to save it.
  Second, the $89 billion the Democrats talk about would amount to 
nothing more than another in a long line of band-aid solutions that 
would only get us through the next election, when we should be worried 
about getting us through well into the next century. Remember, the baby 
boomers begin retiring in about 2008-2010. If we don't take strong and 
decisive measures now, Medicare would be seriously jeopardized by then.
  Third, the $89 billion figure was proposed by one Medicare trustee, 
Robert Rubin, the Secretary of the Treasury. My question is this. If 
$89 billion in savings is all that is needed to save Medicare, why 
didn't Rubin tell President Clinton, whose proposal called for $190 
billion in savings? Clinton is Rubin's boss, isn't he? He's also one of 
Clinton's Medicare trustees. So why didn't he just walk across the 
street and tell the President?
  The reason is politics. The $89 billion being bandied about by the 
medigogues on the other side of the aisle is a political calculation, 
not an actuarial one. It is rooted in Presidential politics, not 
economic reality.

                              {time}  1045

  I guess nobody expected anybody in this Congress to read the report 
that was prepared for the Congress. I guess the Democrats, while they 
controlled the Congress, never bothered to read the report.
  Mr. Speaker, we are going to move forward to save Medicare on our 
own, if the other side refuses to be constructive.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Pelosi].
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule because I 
object to the limitation it places on debate.
  Mr. Speaker, in order to keep the American people in the dark, the 
Republican leadership has demanded a closed process which stifles 
debate and shuts out the voices of those affected by this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose the rule because of the process, but also 
because of the substance of the legislation. The Republican proposal 
assaults the quality, security, affordability, and accessibility of 
health care to our seniors.
  This legislation is not legitimate, because it has not been subject 
to a period of public comment. It is not responsible, because it 
imposes higher cost and benefit cuts for America's seniors to give a 
$270 billion tax break to America's wealthiest. This is a sad day in 
America, because the Republican leadership is undermining the dignity 
of our seniors, undermining the quality of our health care, and 
undermining the greatness of our country.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge our colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule, to 
vote ``no'' on the bill. I urge our colleagues to support Medicare, 
yes; tax cuts no.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. 
Linder] has 4 minutes remaining and the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Beilenson] has 6 minutes remaining.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Kentucky [Mr. Ward].
  Mr. WARD. Mr. Speaker, I have a chart here that I think is very 
important for the American people to see as this debate begins. 
Remember, we all want to make sure that Medicare stays safe and sound, 
just as we have done almost every year since 1970.
  Mr. Speaker, we are seeing a study that says Medicare going to need 
some help, but it does not need $270 billion of help. The reason they 
have to do $270 billion on this side of the aisle is to keep the 
promises they have made for tax cuts, half of which go to the top one-
eighth of income earners in this country.
  Mr. Speaker, this chart shows that people who are making more than 
$100,000 a year are going to get 52 percent. Over half of the tax 
breaks that they are instituting this year will go to people earning 
over $100,000. Today, the Wall Street Journal said, ``Tax analysis 
shows GOP package would mean increases for half of taxpayers.'' They 
are increasing taxes on the poor, and the working poor, and lowering 
them on the wealthy. It is not right.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Levin].
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, part of the October assault of the 
Republicans on Medicare is on Medicare fraud and abuse. Last night, 
they put into the bill, last night, five or six pages. I want my 
colleagues to know it is a smoke screen.
  Mr. Speaker, the conduct that is covered in this bill is already 
covered under Federal law. They are weakening Federal law. The 
inspector general says, ``Crippling.'' Justice Department says, 
``Seriously undercutting.'' They cannot cover up this assault on our 
battle against fraud and abuse in Medicare.
  Mr. Speaker, to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle I say, 
Shame on you.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. BEILENSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule and the bill 
representing the Medicare portion of the 1995 budget reconciliation 
legislation that it makes in order.
  The modified closed rule we are considering today is totally 
inadequate for the consideration of one of the most important bills we 
will be asked to vote on this year. If enacted, the Medicare portion of 
the reconciliation legislation will have a profound impact on the lives 
of nearly 40 million elderly and disabled citizens--Americans who are 
among the most vulnerable members of our society.
  This major and complicated piece of legislation deserves, if not an 
entirely open rule, certainly one that allows far more time for debate 
and that makes many more amendments in order than the rule before us 
permits.
  We urged in the strongest possible terms that the majority on the 
Rules Committee approve a more open rule for H.R. 2425, so that the 
fullest possible debate could be held on its provisions and on their 
enormously serious consequences.
  Unfortunately, we were unsuccessful, and we are faced now with a rule 
that severely limits debate and shuts a great many members out of the 
amendment process entirely.
  Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee heard yesterday from at least 40 
members--Republican, Democratic, and independent--of the House, most of 
whom came before us to ask that their proposed amendments to H.R. 2425 
be made in order.
  At least some of those amendments deserve to be debated and voted on 
by the full House. They are reasonable proposals; they were offered by 
sensible and thoughtful Members of this body who obviously have given 
their suggestions a great deal of thought.
  Instead, the rule we are considering denied 14 members of the 
Democratic caucus and 5 Republican members the right to offer their 
amendments today. At the very least, we felt that the majority on the 
Rules Committee would have made in order the very reasonable and 
thoughtful amendments proposed by several Republicans.

[[Page H 10325]]

  This is a list of the Republican amendments that we will be unable to 
vote on today, and which certainly deserve consideration:
  The gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Ganske] requested that three amendments 
be made in order. Two of them are aimed at curbing potential abuses by 
HMO's, an issue that was central to last year's debate on health care 
reform and should be of as much concern to our Republican colleagues 
this year.
  The first amendment would require that physicians, rather than 
nonmedical personnel, review denials of care. The second would make it 
more difficult for HMO's to retroactively deny payment for care in 
emergency situations. These two were approved by the Commerce Committee 
but were not included in the Archer-Bliley compromise that is being 
made in order as the original text.
  The third Ganske amendment would provide a minimum floor in the 
adjusted average per capita cost of 85 percent of the national average 
and then provide for differential updates to close the gap.
  The gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] requested that his 
amendment dealing with Medicare fraud and abuse be made in order. That 
amendment would add important antifraud prevention measures to H.R. 
2425 by improving coordination between Federal and State antifraud 
efforts; improving Federal criminal law to better address health care 
fraud; and improving administrative procedures, especially those to 
keep providers previously barred from participating in Medicare. There 
is obviously a good deal of support for strengthening the provisions in 
the bill to combat waste, fraud and abuse; this comprehensive amendment 
should have been made in order so that Members could decide if its 
provisions are necessary to protect and strengthen the Medicare 
Program.

  The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Torkildsen] asked that his 
amendment be in order allowing all States to see their Medicare funding 
increase at the national average, instead of the proposal in the bill 
that has different growth rates for different States. He argued that a 
uniform rate of increase is essential so that some States do not have 
to bear far more of the national burden in cuts than other States.
  The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Camp] asked that the House be 
allowed to vote on his amendment exempting from the medical malpractice 
liability cap those instances in which medical treatment was 
intentionally withheld.
  Mr. Speaker, the Democratic amendments should also have been in 
order.
  They sought to allow Members to vote on cuts in Medicare that would 
have ensured its solvency, but would not have been so great as the 
Republican plan that uses cuts in Medicare to help pay for tax 
Increases for the wealthiest Americans.
  They sought to strengthen fraud and abuse provisions that the bill 
weakens unacceptably.
  They sought to add new preventative benefits such as mammography, 
colorectal screening, and diabetes screening.
  They sought to reinstate the clinical laboratory regulations, the 
nursing home reform standards, the ban on physician self-referral, and 
to remove the serious exemptions from antitrust laws for physicians 
forming managed care groups.
  These are only a few of the very serious issues that Members should 
have been allowed to vote on today.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2425 is the single largest part of the massive 
budget reconciliation plan; it cuts Medicare far beyond what is 
necessary to safeguard the Medicare trust fund.
  It would not only impose new and heavy financial burdens on the 
elderly, but it would also irresponsibly relax Federal regulation of 
doctors and the operations of their practices. The concessions that 
loosen or repeal Federal regulations that are in the bill to win the 
support of the American Medical Association are far too extreme; no one 
argues that Federal regulation that is too complex and burdensome 
should not be rectified, but the legislation before us uses reported 
excesses as an excuse to do away with Federal oversight almost 
entirely.
  The provisions that severely weaken Federal laws prohibiting 
kickbacks and fraud and abuse and that allow doctors to refer patients 
to companies in which they have a financial interest--a practice now 
forbidden--would undermine consumer protections and could harm public 
health, especially when combined with other provisions in the bill that 
end Federal standards for nursing homes and make it more difficult for 
victims of malpractice to collect large judgments.
  Mr. Speaker, we should be concerned that this complex bill relaxes or 
repeals many laws that were originally adopted in response to abuses 
that prompted public outrage. And even though the bill is promoted as 
being written to control the costs of Medicare, many of its proposals--
including those weakening fraud sanctions--would actually increase the 
costs.
  There are many other worrisome provisions in this bill. For example, 
in a little noticed provision, the bill would reimburse private 
hospitals for some local taxes, a provision that in effect takes money 
from hospitals that serve disproportionate numbers of the poor and 
uninsured and gives it to hospitals whose main purpose is to make a 
profit.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill makes the most profound changes in the 
Medicare Program since its inception. It is a shame that the majority 
is allowing this bill to be rushed through without adequate time or 
amendment and without a complete understanding by Members of the House 
or the public of the seriousness and complexity of the changes this 
bill is proposing.
  This rule should be defeated so that we can consider a wider range of 
amendments to this major bill. If it is not, the bill itself should be 
defeated--in its present form it will severely damage a system on which 
40 million elderly and disabled Americans rely. It does not deserve our 
support.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Mississippi [Mr. Taylor].
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today to 
ask my colleagues to vote against this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by saying shame on the Republican 
leadership who control the Committee on Rules for not allowing the 
coalition to offer their $170 billion plan to save Medicaid; and 
dollar-for-dollar plan that would save Medicaid, as their trustees 
asked us to do; would allow military retirees to take their Medicaid 
money to military hospitals and have the much needed care.
  Mr. Speaker, I also want to say shame on the Democratic leadership 
for not allowing the coalition to offer their plan as the Democratic 
alternative in the motion to recommit. This body is about finding 
fairness for the American people. It is not about catering to the 
Republicans' special interests or the Democrats; special interests. It 
is doing what is right for the American people.
  The Republicans promised open rules, and yet they are depriving us of 
the opportunity to offer a very good plan that was put together. They 
claim to be for fairness, and yet the fairest plan of all, one that 
would solve the problem, will not see the light of day because they do 
not want a better alternative to come to the floor, because both groups 
are afraid it would pass.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that several members of the 
Committee on Rules that voted to deny the coalition the plan to bring 
Medicare subvention to the floor, the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon], the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Linder], the gentlewoman from 
Ohio [Ms. Pryce], the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart], the 
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. McInnis], the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Frost], and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall], are all cosponsors of 
the bill to fix Medicare subvention. Yet those seven Members, a 
majority of the Committee on Rules, would not let this important 
measure as a part of the coalition budget, come to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I say to these colleagues, ``Shame on all of you all.''
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dreier], a colleague on the Committee on Rules.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the world has changed since 1965. Back in 
1965, we saw the automobile industry in a great deal of difficulty. It 
was world competition which played a role in bringing about the changes 
that we have seen. The companies that produced those automobiles back 
in 1965 have gone through tremendous managerial changes.
  We need to recognize that it is a new day. And thank heavens, this 
new majority has stepped up to the plate and decided to bring this very 
important system into the 21st century.
  We are doing it under a very unique process. Thirty years ago, April 
7, 1965, when this measure came to the floor, it came under a 
completely closed rule. A completely closed rule which did not allow 
any amendments, any substitute, any motion to recommit.
  Today, as we look and seek to protect, strengthen, and preserve 
Medicare, what are we doing? We are providing the opportunity for 
alternatives to 

[[Page H 10326]]
be met. We are doing it in a bipartisan way. In a bipartisan way we 
came to the conclusion that we should deal with this language that 
addresses the issue of fraud. We have done it very effectively. We did 
it last night up in the Committee on Rules.
  I also believe that we need to recognize that the rhetoric that we 
have heard from so many of my very good friends on the other side of 
the aisle has been correctly described by the Washington Post as 
nothing more than Medigoguery.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I have only a limited amount of time.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is the one who imposed the 
time limit by this rule.
  Mr. LINDER. Regular order.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I want to correct what the gentleman from 
California said. The Republicans got a motion to recommit in 1965. The 
motion to recommit gutted Social Security, and every Republican but 10 
voted for it.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, as my friend has made it 
very clear, I was not here. The gentleman from Florida was here then, 
but there was not a substitute that was offered.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule is much more open than the rule that 
considered Medicare in 1965. I urge an aye vote on this very fair rule, 
and recognition that stepping up to the plate and dealing with a 
serious problem that President Clinton has acknowledged is something 
that the majority of this Congress is willing to do.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Mexico [Mr. Richardson], a Nobel Prize candidate.
  (Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, 30 years ago, the Congress covered 
itself with glory by passing the Medicare Program, which provided 
health coverage for millions of Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, today in this Chamber we are presiding over the 
decimating of Medicare. If this monstrosity becomes law, Medicare will 
end as we know it today, America, is this what you voted for last 
November?
  Maybe my colleagues on the other side will win the vote today, and 
maybe they will win the vote in the corridors of the AMA and other 
Gucci lobbyists on K Street, but they will lose the vote in the hearts 
and minds of ordinary Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, we are ramming through this bill at 100 miles an hour 
with no hearings, 3 hours of debate, for a drastic overhaul of the 
system that affects 40 million Americans.
  Does the Republican leadership think that nobody is going to notice? 
Mr. Speaker, this is a bad bill. It should go down.
  Mr. Speaker, I have two words to describe this rule--bate and switch.
  Three times I have received a copy of this bill only to walk into a 
committee meeting the next day and find a new bill.
  In fact, yesterday afternoon at 4 p.m., we saw for the first time the 
bill we are now debating.
  Cuts in Medicare will directly affect 37 million Americans.
  For an issue so important to America--this rule allows only 4 hours 
of debate.
  This rule is about a bill which cuts $270 billion to provide for a 
tax cut for the wealthy.
  Yet, the latest polls show that 83 percent of Americans do not want 
to cut Medicare to provide for a tax break for the wealthy.
  We are also told that this bill is about giving seniors a choice. 
But, as far as I can tell the only choice seniors will have is to pay 
more or give up their doctor.
  Yesterday, I asked to offer two amendments that would have 
strengthened this bill and cost Medicare nothing.
  The House will not even have the chance to consider my amendments 
under this rule.
  It is not just unfair to run the peoples House this way--it is 
undemocratic.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and vote 
``no'' on this rule.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to close.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from 
Massachusetts has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from 
Georgia reserves the balance of his time to close.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, what strange version of democracy is this? 
We have a program that affects the lives, directly, of 40 million 
Americans, affects the lives of their children or their parents or 
their grandparents, a tremendously important program, and without any 
hearings on the final version of this legislation, this House is going 
to be forced to move forward with 3 hours of debate.
  Mr. Speaker, we spent about 10 times as much on the Waco hearings as 
we are going to spend on Medicare for every American.
  Medicare has problems. Yes. Does this bill address those problems? 
No. Is it a thoughtful approach? No. Is it something that will 
stabilize Medicare into the next century and anticipate the retirement 
of the baby boom? Absolutely not.
  Mr. Speaker, it is purely budget- and politics-driven. Medicare does 
have a problem. It has a $90 billion shortfall over a 7-year period. 
They are taking $273 billion to fix a $90 billion problem.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. MOAKLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. Speaker, I think that Members have heard the debate. They say a 
person convinced against his will is of the same opinion still, but I 
hope that despite that old adage that some people will pay attention to 
the debate and have a change of mind.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a no on the previous question. If the previous 
question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I will insert in the Record the text of my amendment. 
The amendment would do two things. First, it would strike the provision 
and waive the three-fifths vote requirement on any measure with a 
Federal income tax rate increase; and, second, Mr. Speaker, will make 
in order the Rangel amendment to make Medicare solvent by an across-
the-board limit on tax cuts for the wealthy.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit the following for inclusion in the Record.

                        Amendment to H. Res. 238

       On page 3, lines 18-20, strike ``Clause 5(c) of rule XXI 
     shall not apply to the bill, amendments thereto, or 
     conference reports thereon.''
       On page 2, line 25, strike ``.'' and add ``and the 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the 
     Congressional Record and numbered 3 pursuant to clause 6 of 
     rule XXIII, which may be considered any rule of the House to 
     the contrary notwithstanding, to be offered only by 
     Representative Rangel of New York or his designee, which 
     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.''
       On page 3, line 1, strike ``that amendment in the nature of 
     a substitute'' and insert ``the amendments in the nature of a 
     substitute made in order under this resolution''.

  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to emphasize again the quote or 
the comment made on this floor by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Durbin].
  Mr. Durbin said Democrats are going to lose today. They are indeed. 
They are going to lose control of a program that they began and have 
held control over and has grown entirely out of control. They are going 
to lose control over the lives and choices of seniors in health care, 
and they are going to lose control over money of future generations to 
pay for it.
  We have heard a lot of florid prose today, not to say lurid prose. 
The gentleman from New Mexico said, we are decimating Medicare. To 
decimate means to reduce by one-tenth. We are actually increasing 
Medicare spending over the next 7 years to $1.6 trillion. It was $924 
billion over the last 7 years. That is hardly to decimate to reduce by 
one-tenth.
  Much reference has been made to the rule regarding a 60 percent vote 
for increases in tax rates. There is no increase in tax rates in this 
bill. There are no increases in taxes in this bill. But those of us in 
the majority wondered if some on the minority would call the part B 
premium a tax and call it an increase. It has been called a premium for 
30 years. But it is no doubt 

[[Page H 10327]]
that somebody would begin to call it a tax in the debate today and take 
up another hour of time defending it.
  We have heard that Republicans have never supported Medicare. Yet 
when it passed 30 years ago, it passed 313 to 115 with nearly half of 
the Republicans in this House voting yes.
  We heard in the Committee on Rules yesterday by the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Stark], that in 8 of the last 9 years or 9 of the last 
10 years, I forget which number he gave us, that bipartisan bills have 
been introduced, Republicans and Democrats, to change reimbursement 
rates to attempt to strengthen Medicare. It has not worked. It is 
growing out of control.
  In closing, let me give Members one more quote that I support from a 
Democrat. Just 2 years ago it was said, ``Today Medicaid and Medicare 
are going up at three times the rate of inflation. We propose to let it 
go up another two times the rate of inflation. This is not a Medicare 
or Medicaid cut.''
  That Democrat was Mr. Clinton on October 5, 1993.
  Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on ordering the 
previous question.
  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 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.
  Pursuant to the provisions of clause 5 of rule XV, the Chair 
announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of 
time within which a vote by electronic device, if ordered, will be 
taken on the question of adoption of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 231, 
nays 194, not voting 7 as follows:

                             [Roll No. 726]

                               YEAS--231

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     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
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     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
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--194

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

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Cox
     Crane
     Fields (LA)
     Flake
     Martinez
     Tejeda
     Tucker

                              {time}  1123

  Mr. TOWNS changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. SHUSTER and Mrs. MORELLA changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             RECORDED VOTE

  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 227, 
noes 192, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 727]

                               AYES--227

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     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
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones

[[Page H 10328]]

     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     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
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--192

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Crane
     Fields (LA)
     Flake
     Johnson (CT)
     Lazio
     Martinez
     Morella
     Payne (VA)
     Roth
     Tejeda
     Tucker
     Waters
     Williams

                              {time}  1131

  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.

                          ____________________