[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 162 (Thursday, October 19, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H10455-H10464]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   MEDICARE PRESERVATION ACT OF 1995

  The Committee resumed its sitting.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. Stearns], a member of the committee.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Gibbons], my good friend, to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], 
to the minority leader, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], let 
me first of all say, Your argument about tax cuts for the rich is 
clearly false, but let's really look at this argument in two ways.
  First of all, Mr. Chairman, all the tax cuts were paid for before we 
even started talking about Medicare. Confirmed by CBO, these tax cuts 
were paid for as follows: welfare reform is $90 billion in savings; FCC 
spectrum auction is $15 billion; Uranium Enrichment Corporation is $2 
million; and appropriation reductions are $38 billion in savings. My 
friends in the House and to all Americans, you should realize that they 
were paid for--$245 billion--was saved even before we even started 
talking about saving Medicare.
  So the point is that there is nothing about this tax cut that is 
coming from Medicare savings or going for the rich. 

[[Page H 10456]]
When we are going broke in a program like Medicare and spending less, 
we cannot put the savings into anything. That is math 101. There is not 
more cash by slowing of the growth in Medicare. There is less debt. Now 
the trust fund will be able to build up a reserve for those future 
generations. It is like reducing the principal on one's home mortgage. 
It does not mean that you have more cash. It means that you pay less 
obligation to the bank. By slowing the spending growth, we insure that 
the Medicare trust fund stays solvent. Solving this growth means the 
program will survive, and, Mr. Chairman, as mentioned before, the 
lockbox insures any savings from waste, fraud, and abuse goes to the 
trust fund.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Levin].
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, the majority likes to quote the Trustees. 
They never say this. Here is what they say. The majority is asking for 
$270 billion in Medicare cuts, almost three times what is necessary to 
guarantee the life of the hospital insurance trust fund. As this chart 
shows, our substitute extends it for the same period as they do.
  Second, there is a critical fact: Without the Medicare cuts there is 
not the money for the tax break, period.
  Third, they talk about Medicare fraud and abuse. They should not brag 
about increasing penalties when their bill makes it more difficult to 
convict anybody. We can have life imprisonment. In their bill, we 
cannot convict anybody.
  Fourth, you talk about market-driven forces. Seventy percent of your 
savings comes from old-fashioned price controls, 17 percent comes from 
hitting seniors. In fact, the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] 
likes to brag that he is a radical. I would say to the gentleman, he 
can have that label. We Democrats want reform, not radical change.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Montana [Mr. Williams].
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, it is this amendment that has the 
arithmetic that the trustees say will keep Medicare fiscally solvent. 
The Republican proposal is nothing new for them. For half a century, 
congressional Republicans have harbored a subtle but sinister 
opposition to Social Security, and later, to Medicare.
  When Social Security was first created in 1935, 99 percent of the 
Republican Members of Congress voted against it, and a third of a 
decade later, in 1965, when Medicare was created, 93 percent of 
Republicans in Congress voted against it.
  What is different now? Because at last they have the majority, and 
they are determined that they will gut, today, Medicare, tomorrow 
Social Security, programs which they have always opposed and which they 
oppose here today with their new majority.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson], chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight 
of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, it will not work. You 
cannot increase benefits, you cannot tell the American people you will 
increase benefits, cut premiums, and save Medicare. Medicare is 
insolvent next year. It is bankrupt 5 years thereafter. To get up here 
with a program that says ``We are going to do this for you, that for 
you, and add benefits, but we are going to cut premiums, folks, and we 
are going to save Medicare,'' the American people do not want those 
kinds of answers anymore.
  Let us look at this premium issue. What do the Republicans do? We say 
listen, you seniors out there, you have to keep with the level of 
burden you are carrying now. You are carrying 31 percent, just the part 
B costs. You keep carrying it. Seniors with $75,000 retirement incomes 
are going to carry more. What is this rich-poor business? Not one word 
of support for raising premiums on seniors who have a retirement income 
of $75,000 or more.
  All we say to seniors is to save this program, keep doing what you 
are doing, and if you can afford it, do a little more if you have over 
$75,000 in income. What the Democrats say, we are going to cut it to 25 
percent. We are going to give you a break. We are going to give you 
more benefits and lower premiums. Do you know what that does? That 
makes people working hard day in, day out, earning $30,000, $35,000, 
and $40,000 pay more taxes.
  Six of the last ten years they have increased Medicare taxes. This is 
a back-ended, under-the-ground, surreptitious tax increase, because 
they are going to make the taxpayers pay more of the part B costs than 
they are currently paying, as costs are rising.
  The second deceptive aspect of the plan the Democrats are offering, 
and it is more of the same, they only fix part A. Part B is in just as 
much trouble. Mr. Chairman, we have to save Medicare, not part A of 
Medicare.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Cardin].
  Mr. CARDIN. Let me just correct this, Mr. Chairman. The gentlewoman 
from Connecticut is not accurate when she says we are cutting premiums. 
We are not. We are sticking with current law. They are changing current 
law. By changing current law, they are increasing the burdens on our 
seniors by increasing the part B premium.
  The Democratic substitute or the substitute that we are offering 
stays with existing law. The dollar amount is currently in law and it 
goes back to 25 percent and then goes back to a COLA increase. They are 
increasing it, we are keeping current law.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Greenwood].
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
   Mr. Chairman, just a little while ago I had a young man, a sophomore 
in high school, down here for a leadership council meeting. He was 
sitting in my office and we were having a little chat. He looked up at 
the screen and he heard one of the Members of the other party speaking. 
He said, ``Is that true?'' I said, ``No, that is not true. That is a 
lie.'' He said, ``Are they allowed to do that?'' I said, ``They are not 
supposed to, but they do.'' Half of our job today is to try to correct 
these misstatements. There have been an awful lot of statements about 
this bill, weakening the ability to crack down on waste, fraud, and 
abuse.
  Here are the facts: Our bill creates a new criminal statute, outlaws 
fraud, provides for fines of up to $500,000. Their bill limits the 
penalty for that offense at $50,000. Our bill says if you make a false 
statement there is a 5-year prison term, up to a $500,000 fine. The 
substitute limits that fine to $50,000. We make a new crime of theft 
and embezzlement. We make it a felony that carries a 10-year prison 
term and a half million dollar fine. The minority's substitute makes no 
mention of this crime.

  The same thing on bribery and graft. Our bill, there is a half 
million dollar fine, 15-year prison term. Nothing over there. Our bill, 
obstruction of criminal investigation of a health care crime, a prison 
term, a half million fine, and nothing from the other side. Our bill is 
the toughest bill in the history of the Medicare Program on waste, 
fraud, and abuse. We ought to support it for that reason, if for no 
other.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GREENWOOD. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman should have known the 
statements that were just made about how sound the Republican program 
is were false. They would have been punishable under current law under 
the should have known rule. We are sound until 2010. They are sound 
until 2006, I will give them the credit, but the difference is a $300 
billion loss in 2010. When we are still solvent.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
South Carolina [Mr. Spratt].
  (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, the Republicans would have us believe that 
Medicare is standing on the brink of bankruptcy. Having told 37 million 
beneficiaries whose lives depend on Medicare, having told them that 
their security is becoming worthless, they 

[[Page H 10457]]
have the audacity to say the Democrats are scaring people.
  In truth, the Medicare hospital insurance trust fund is not standing 
on the brink of bankruptcy, it is sitting on a surplus of $136 billion. 
That is not my definition of insolvency. It is true that this year 
Medicare will be drawing down that surplus, but even in 1999, the 
insurance trust fund will have assets of almost $100 billion. That is 
not my idea of a crisis.
  Do we need to reduce the cost of Medicare? Sure we do, but the 
Democratic substitute lowers the cost by $90 billion over 7 years, and 
that end result--$90 billion of relief to the hospital insurance trust 
fund--is all the Republicans accomplish by $270 billion of savage cuts, 
because not only do they reduce the cost of Part A, but they also 
reduce the payroll taxes paid into it by $36 billion. I urge my 
colleagues to support the Democratic substitute.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. DeLay], the distinguished whip.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, for days, weeks, even months we have heard 
the rhetoric regarding the future of Medicare. We have heard all the 
scare tactics, we have seen the attack ads, we have read the 
newspapers, but beyond the hype, beyond the clouds of misinformation, 
some basic facts emerge.
  First, Medicare is going broke, and it will be broke in 7 years.
  Second, the Republicans are not cutting Medicare.
  Third, Democrats do not have a serious alternative that will save 
Medicare for the next generation.
  The American people can begin to understand the basic differences in 
the approaches to saving Medicare between the Republicans and the 
Democrats. Republicans want to reform the whole system. We want to make 
commonsense changes which will promote greater choices, give greater 
flexibility to seniors, crack down on fraud and abuse, and put 
reasonable limits on Medicare growth.
  Democrats ignore reform. They lack the courage to make commonsense 
changes to the system. They would prefer to keep the current system, 
which, if unreformed, will bankrupt this country. To me, Mr. Chairman, 
the Democrat alternative is just a joke wrapped in fraud and shrouded 
by farce. They save Medicare only enough to save their own political 
hides. In fact, secretly, Democrats would rather do nothing than to 
reform Medicare.

  Mr. Chairman, political cowardice is no substitute for responsible 
policy. If we do nothing to save Medicare, the country faces a stark 
choice: Either we forget about ever achieving fiscal responsibility, or 
the government will be forced to rapidly raise payroll taxes and income 
taxes. As we all know, even President Clinton now suffers from taxer's 
remorse over his last huge tax increase, so clearly, raising taxes is 
not a serious alternative.
  Mr. Chairman, as Edmund Burke once said, ``For evil to succeed, good 
people simply need to do nothing.'' The Democrats are doing nothing to 
save Medicare, and their inaction is a fool's choice. I urge my 
colleagues to vote for a brighter future for this country. Vote to save 
Medicare and reject this half-hearted Democrat substitute.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fattah].
  (Mr. FATTAH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Democratic 
alternative and oppose the Republican plan.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman].
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want the public that may be watching this 
debate to understand the depth of cynicism that the Republicans have in 
presenting their Medicare proposal. I am going to put into the Record a 
series of key words and phrases given to the Republicans to use in this 
debate. Members may well recognize some words like ``save, preserve, 
protect, proud to support.'' Then when they talk about the Democratic 
proposal they are supposed to say ``politics as usual, the politics of 
the past.'' Maybe an energetic reporter will look through these 
comments today to see how many of these phrases were dutifully used by 
the Republicans for their proposal and against ours.
  The second level of cynicism, to talk about the insolvency of the 
Medicare trust fund, to use that as an excuse for their package, the 
Medicare trust fund was nine times out of sync, and each time it was, 
without fanfare and partisan propaganda, restored. Mr. Chairman, this 
amendment is notable for what it does not do. What it does not do, 
unlike the Gingrich bill, is make the elderly pay larger premiums just 
to keep their Medicare benefits. It does not destroy the fee-for-
service Medicare system that people are already in, and that they like, 
and it does not offer them these phony choices that will be paid for by 
savaging the Medicare program fee-for-service.
  This amendment does not do what the Republicans do, which leaves 
people unprotected if they are forced out of Medicare into these 
Medicare-plus plans for balanced budgets, and doctors will charge them 
extra bills for their services. Unlike the Gingrich bill, it does not 
take billions of dollars out of Medicare to finance tax cuts, or to 
finance deficit reduction. This substitute preserves Medicare without 
doing all these onerous things, and for that reason, Mr. Chairman, we 
ought to support it.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Thomas], chairman of the Subcommittee on Health of the 
Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from California, 
what is this reporter going to do? I just heard him use the word 
``preserve.'' I guess there are only certain words people can use 
because there are only obviously clues and keys. My belief is, you 
think your program preserves Medicare. We believe our program preserves 
Medicare.

                              {time}  1615

  That word is going to be used on this floor back and forth. The 
difference is, how long and under what circumstances is Medicare 
preserved, and how do you preserve it? Yes, you preserved it nine times 
in the last 10 years. Six of those were increases in the payroll tax or 
lifting the lid on wages subject to the payroll tax.
  What you have here is an honest representation of the difference in 
the plans. I know you do not like it, but it is the truth. If you will 
read the bill, I said read the bill, the Republican program stays sound 
through 2010. After 2010, yes, we have to find some money, but 2010 is 
when the baby boomers become eligible for Medicare. Our plan is solid. 
We do not have to look for new money until we fix it for the baby 
boomers.
  The Democrats have said, they are sound at 2006. I agree, you are 
sound at 2006. What is the difference between 2006 and 2010? $300 
billion. That is that red line. I know that is hard for you to 
envision. Red lines, $300 billion in the hole. At the time you are 
trying to work with the baby boomer commission, which you have in your 
bill as well, you are also going to have to find money to fill a $300 
billion hole.
  Mr. Chairman, we do not. Our program better preserves and protects 
Medicare. It strengthens it. We do not go to the well like you do in 
terms of increasing taxes. We do it through slowing the growth and 
allowing innovative programs using market-based techniques to save the 
system. That is the difference between our approach and yours.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
New York [Mrs. Lowey].
  (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, the Medicare cuts in the Republican bill 
will have a devastating impact on the quality of care New York seniors 
receive. It is very clear that the cuts will double the premiums, 
eliminate protections against higher medical fees, and make it harder 
for seniors to see their own doctor. For seniors living on fixed 
incomes, this Republican plan will mean real hardship.
  The Republican Members know that, and that is why Speaker Gingrich 
has been making back-room deals to win votes. Unfortunately, when Newt 
Gingrich plays ``Let's Make a Deal,'' America's seniors lose. Frankly, 
all this deal-making is absolutely shameful.
  Let me just ask our Republican colleagues, if this is such a great 
bill, if it 

[[Page H 10458]]
is so good for seniors, why all the deals? You do not have to make 
deals to get votes for good bills, just bad ones.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse].
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, it is very simple. If we need to save $90 
billion, do it. We can do it with the Democratic bill. The only 
difference is, the Democratic bill puts the savings in the trust fund, 
not into wealthy people's pockets. It does not cost seniors more, it 
protects the trust fund.
  I believe that we can cure the Medicare system, but let us use a 
scalpel, not a meat ax. Let us vote for the Democratic alternative.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Matsui], a very fine member of our Committee on Ways 
and Means.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Gibbons] for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I have to say that this notion that the bill, if in 
fact, it passes does not pay for tax cuts is nonsense. What the 
Republicans plan to do, if this bill passes today, is to bring it back 
and put it on the reconciliation bill, and that way, they will be able 
to use the $270 billion in savings on Medicare to pay for the $245 
billion in tax cuts. If, in fact, this Medicare bill goes down today, 
they will not be able to do the $245 billion tax cut, because they will 
not be able to put it on reconciliation. So it is obvious what is 
really going on.
  I might also further point out what this debate is really all about. 
Everybody says, well, this is really just slowing the growth of 
Medicare on the Republican side. That is right. It is slowing the 
growth of Medicare. In the year 2002, just 6 years, 7 years from now, 
the average Medicare recipient will have $6,500 spent on them per year. 
Per capita, $6,500.
  Mr. Chairman, they do not tell you the growth in the private sector. 
The private sector growth will go up to $7,600, a gap of $1,100. So I 
and anybody 30, 40, 50 years old in the work force will get $7,600, but 
if you are 60, 70, 80, 90 years old, you are going to get $1,000 less.
  Why do we have Medicare in the first place? Medicare was passed in 
1964 because seniors were not in the workplace, because seniors could 
not have access to private health insurance. As a result of that, they 
were left uninsured. We had a 25 percent poverty rate in senior 
citizens in 1964. It is down to 11 percent now and we should be very 
proud of that.
  What we are going to do is we are going to bankrupt the senior 
citizens of America. That poverty rate is going to go up. We are going 
to be doing major damage to the senior citizens of this country, and I 
think, as the minority leader said, this is really an issue of values.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my Republican colleagues, what are your values? 
What do you stand for? Why are you here? Do you believe in the future 
of this country, or do you want to play games with senior citizens, 
those people that supported you in the prime of your life?
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I want to urge my colleagues to get behind 
this very rational Democratic substitute that cures the problems that 
will be created by the Republican Medicare plan. We will be saving 
Medicare with this $90 billion that the trustees say that is all that 
is necessary.
  We do not need the tax cut for the wealthy. We will be eliminating 
the dramatic increases in the Part B premium, and there will be no 
forced choices for seniors under this. They do not have to go into 
HMOs, they can still choose their own doctors.
  Even more important, it does not hurt the quality of health care. 
Hospitals will not have to close or cut back considerably. Payments to 
hospitals are reduced by less than one-half the amount in the 
Republican bill. Lastly, and just as important, this substitute deals 
with prevention.
  If we can have more preventive care, which is provided in this 
substitute, we can save a lot of money and seniors will not have to be 
hospitalized, they will not have to be institutionalized.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support for the Democratic substitute.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Pelosi].
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, in listening to the debate I must ask our 
Republican colleagues, who are you trying to convince? In listening to 
the defense of your Medicare cuts, methinks thou doth protest too much. 
But it is understandable, when it must be a bitter pill to swallow to 
cut senior citizens' benefits, increase their premiums to give a tax 
break to the wealthiest Americans. Indeed, as the Speaker calls the tax 
cut, the crown jewel of the contract.
  America's senior citizens and disabled people depend on Medicare for 
their health and security. The choice before the House today is between 
the Republican plan, which would threaten their security, and the 
Democratic plan, which would protect health and security for America's 
seniors.
  In summary, the Republican bill cuts $180 billion more than what is 
needed to make the trust fund solvent, inflicts excessive new premiums 
on beneficiaries, forces low-income seniors into managed care, repeals 
important Federal nursing home standards, decimates the safety net in 
teaching hospitals, and weaken protections.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Democratic 
alternative
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself three-quarters of a minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I just received a copy of Congress Daily, and I want to 
call it to the particular attention of my dear friend, the gentleman 
from Virginia [Mr. Bliley]. Under the subject ``Health'', it reads 
``Bliley Hints At Compromise On $270 Billion Medicare Savings.''
  ``Even as President Clinton suggested he might be willing to meet 
Republican demands that the budget be balanced over 7 years rather than 
10, a key House Republican today hinted the GOP might be willing to 
compromise on the previously inflexible $270 billion savings target for 
Medicare.''
  It looks like my Republican colleagues are being asked to walk the 
plank. I think that is a fine idea. But my friends over there should be 
told what they are facing and that maybe a compromise is in the offing.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for his remarks, 
and I meant it sincerely. If the President comes forward with a plan 
that saves Medicare until 2010, I am willing to look at it. I am 
certainly willing to sit down and negotiate with him. There is nothing 
wrong with that. I just wish he would stop standing on the curb and 
throwing bricks and come to the table and negotiate. That is all I ask 
for.
  Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Greenwood].
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Chairman, as has been so often the case in this long day's 
debate, Republicans have to come to the podium time and time again to 
correct some of the misapprehensions left by the other party.
  My good friend, the gentleman from California talked about what a 
terrible thing it was that even though we keep the part B premium at 
31.5 percent, it goes up a little bit in dollars. It goes up a little 
bit in dollars. Well, I think the gentleman needs to be reminded of 
something.
  During the 30 years that the Democratic Party presided over Medicare, 
the part B premium increased 1,500 percent. It started out at $3. As 
the Democratic Party allowed the cost of this program to inflate and to 
inflate out of control, it has been they who have caused the part B 
premium to increase.
  Another statement that I think needs to be made for the record: 
Repeatedly today the Democratic Party has tried to have it both ways. 
We are not paying doctors enough, they say. We are not paying doctors 
high enough fees, we will drive them out of fee-for-service and into 
managed care, and then 2 seconds later they turn around and say, we 
have made some sort of a deal with the doctors to pay them too much.
  The fact of the matter is that the substitute before us treats 
physician fees almost precisely the way our bill 

[[Page H 10459]]
does. Physicians will make lower fees under the Republican bill than 
they would have otherwise, and that is consistent with what the 
Democrats have been trying to do.
  Another inconsistency on fraud and abuse. Our plan makes false 
statements in health care a felony. The Democratic substitute leaves it 
as a misdemeanor, just like a speeding ticket. After listening to the 
Democratic debate today, I understand why they do not want to increase 
this penalty.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a short-term game for the minority party, 
because the fact of the matter is that within a few short months the 
Republican leadership in the Congress and the President of the United 
States will resolve this issue through negotiations, and I guarantee 
you that the negotiated product will look very much like the bill that 
we have presented to the House today.
  When that bill is signed, it will go into effect, and very early next 
year the senior citizens of America will live under this proposal, this 
reform that we have brought to the floor, and they will love it and 
they will thank us for it, and I think they will reelect us for it as 
well.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Kleczka].
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I have just heard through the grapevine 
here that there is a meeting going on with Newt Gingrich and Governor 
Wittman from New Jersey and a side deal is being cut for the New Jersey 
Delegation. However, prior to that old rumor, the old rumor was that 
the Republicans from New Jersey were voting against the plan, so we 
will see whether or not this compromise works.
  Mr. Chairman, if in fact my Republican friends think it is a cut, why 
are the New Jersey Republicans voting against it because their 
hospitals, they contend, are cut too much? Something is inconsistent 
here. Maybe they should take the floor and explain their stand.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Michigan [Ms. Rivers].
  Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, I am a mom. I have got two kids, and I 
understand how handling money goes on. My older daughter says to me, 
``Can I borrow a dollar?'' I say, ``You can borrow a dollar, but you 
can't spend it on candy.'' She says, ``I won't.'' Two hours later I 
come back, and there are candy wrappers everywhere. I say, ``I told you 
not to spend it on candy.'' She said, ``I didn't. I used another dollar 
I had.'' I said, ``Well, that was your lunch money.'' She said, ``I 
know, I used your dollar for lunch money.''
  Well, everybody knows what happened; everybody knows what you are 
trying to do; and, seniors of America, the majority is trying to spend 
your money on candy. Do not let them.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would like to inquire from the gentleman from 
Florida and the gentleman from Michigan who seeks to use your last 
time?
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I am down to my last speaker, the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior]. I am going to yield him all my 
time.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, we have one last speaker that I share with 
the distinguished gentleman from Florida and that would be to close.
  The CHAIRMAN. That would be the appropriate time to do that and that 
would give him 3\1/2\ minutes to close. The gentleman from Texas has 4 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I believe that since we are offering the 
amendment which is set forth in the rule, that the right to close is on 
this side. That would leave my colleagues on the other side to deal 
with that.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas has the right to close as the 
floor manager of the base bill.
  Mr. DINGELL. Am I correct, Mr. Chairman, that we get to close on this 
side?
  The CHAIRMAN. You can close on your side right now, and it will be 
followed by the gentleman from Texas.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. DINGELL. Is it not in the rules that where the offeror of the 
amendment is designated in the rule that it is the right of that 
individual to close?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is informed by the Parliamentarian that it is 
the manager of the bill who has the right to close.
  Mr. DINGELL. I am sure that is true in the case of the debate on the 
bill. I note that this is not debate on the bill. This is the debate on 
the amendment.
  I would note as a further parliamentary inquiry that the gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] and I are essentially the managers of the 
bill as the managers of the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is informed that when the committee chairman 
is defending the committee position, the committee chairman has the 
right to close on an amendment.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I think this is a novel ruling, but I will 
not challenge it.
  Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  Members will record their presence by electronic device.
  The call was taken by electronic device.
  The following Members responded to their names:

                             [Roll No 728]

                       ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--419

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri

[[Page H 10460]]

     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Berman
     Chapman
     Fields (LA)
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gekas
     Hoyer
     McCrery
     Stupak
     Tejeda
     Tucker
     Williams
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1653

  The CHAIRMAN. With 419 Members having answered to their names, a 
quorum is present, and the committee will resume its business.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I have a further parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, as I recall the ruling of the Chair, it 
was that if the committee has a position on the amendment, it is the 
right of the committee to conclude the debate on that point. Is that 
correct?
  The CHAIRMAN. The ruling was that the manager of the bill has the 
closing, and that is how the Chair is instructed by the 
Parliamentarian.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, is it possible for the Chair to inform us 
what is the committee position? I would note that the committee has 
taken no action on this particular proposal.
  If I read the rule correctly, the amendment is offered by authority 
of the Committee on Rules, which has empowered the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Gibbons] and I to offer this particular amendment. The 
amendment was never considered in the Committee on Commerce or in the 
Committee on Ways and Means. That being so, Mr. Chairman, if the Chair 
could help us greatly by informing us what is the position of the 
committee so we can understand if it qualifies under the Chair's prior 
ruling?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] is still the 
manager of the bill under the terms of the rule.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, further parliamentary inquiry. I note H.R. 
2485, in its current form, is not reported from either the Committee on 
Commerce or the Committee on Ways and Means, and the amendment which is 
offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons], and it is offered 
by authority of the Committee on Rules. We are, therefore, the managers 
of that particular amendment and not my good friends on the Republican 
side of the aisle.
  The CHAIRMAN. The base bill is still the bill that came through the 
two committees and was joined in the Committee on Rules, the Chair is 
informed by the Parliamentarian. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] 
is still the manager of the base text.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior], the distinguished minority whip.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior] will be 
recognized for 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, indeed this is a historic debate, a 
historic vote.
  Supporters of this plan that we will be voting on on final passage 
say that this will be a courageous vote, that somehow they are doing 
something on this floor that they will be proud of. But there is 
nothing courageous about cutting Medicare to pay for tax breaks for the 
wealthy, and there is no pride in asking our senior citizens to pay 
more and get less so the wealthiest Americans can have it all.
  But there is one thing supporters of this bill are right about. This 
is a historic vote. With this vote, we turn back 30 years of progress, 
30 years of trust, 30 years of hope that our parents and grandparents 
will always have the health care that they need.
  Mr. Chairman, the seniors who stand with us against this plan do not 
have much money. They do not have expensive homes or fancy cars. But 
when Medicare premiums go up, these are the people who are going to 
have to choose between buying food and buying medicine. They do not 
want to be a burden on their kids, and they do not want a handout.
  If these cuts go through, you are going to take away the one thing, 
the one thing that they thought they would never lose. You are going to 
take away their dignity, and that is unforgivable.
  Now, today, the same people who kept their plan hidden for 9 months, 
who refused to allow more than 1 day of hearings, who actually had 
seniors arrested when they tried to speak out, are accusing us of 
trying to scare senior citizens. That is an insult to the seniors of 
America. The same Republicans who cut the backroom deals with the AMA, 
who promoted savings accounts that would benefit only the wealthy 
insurance companies, now want us to trust them to save Medicare.
  It seems like my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle hope 
that we forget history. For 30 years, the Republican Party has not 
lifted a finger to save Medicare, and for 30 years they have waited for 
this moment to dismantle the system, and we are not going to let them 
turn back the clock now.
  The Gibbons-Dingell-McDermott substitute proves you do not need $270 
billion to shore up the Medicare system until the year 2,000, and it 
proves that you can do it without increasing premiums, without forcing 
seniors into HMO's, without limiting the choice of doctors, and without 
the massive tax breaks for the wealthy.
  We may be nearing the end of this debate on the floor today, and we 
just had a little skirmish here about who is going to close, but the 
debate in this country is just beginning. It is not closing, and it 
will continue around the kitchen tables of every home in America where 
sons and daughters will scrimp and save to care for their parents, and 
there will come a day when they face the tough choices between 
educating their kids and paying their parents' medical bills, and they 
are going to ask, ``Why, did you vote, why did you vote for tax breaks 
for people who did not even need them, instead of helping us?''
  I urge my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, say ``no'' to these tax breaks. 
Say ``yes'' to this substitute and say ``yes'' to Medicare.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 4 minutes.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Chairman, for a moment I must once again expose what 
many Democrats have repeated over and over today, that medical care 
savings will be used for tax cuts. They know it is not true. As the 
Washington Post said, it is medagoguery, political medagoguery.
  They know that savings in the Medicare Trust Fund, under law, cannot 
be spent for anything other than health care benefits for our seniors. 
They know that. They know that in this bill itself there is lockbox 
language that prevents the use of these funds for anything other than 
paying medical bills. And, yes, finally, they know that in the budget 
reconciliation language, which will be before us next week, that 
Medicare has been taken completely out of pay-go under all of the 
budget considerations.
  This is truly nothing but an effort to gain political advantage. They 
keep saying it because they hope that they will divert Americans from 
the real 

[[Page H 10461]]
Medicare problems. Yes, the political response, I say to my colleagues, 
would be to sidestep this issue. We have seen that happen over and over 
again in previous Congresses. But our new majority will not be typical 
Washington politicians. Throughout the debate, many Democrats spoke 
only of the past. We will make the tough decisions and speak to the 
future.
  Our plan is a serious solution to a very real Medicare crisis. Their 
plan is politics of the past, temporary fixes and Band-aids. Our plan 
is a long-term solution, a vision, hopes and dreams for all Americans. 
Their plan bankrupts Medicare well before the baby boomers retire. Our 
plan saves Medicare through the eve of baby-boomer retirement.
  The latest actuary estimate that has just been given to us, delayed 
because of the unavailability of the specific language of the 
substitute, is that their plan saves Medicare through the year 2005, 
and our plan saves Medicare through the year 2011. Six years longer.
  When this bill passes in a few minutes, Republicans will differ from 
politicians who came before us, because we will have kept our word.
  Mr. Chairman, I am proud of this bill. It has been called the 
Gingrich bill, but it is the product of the effort of many of us in 
this body. And, yes, he deserves credit for it.
  We said that we would save Medicare. Today, we will. We said we would 
preserve Medicare. Today, we will. We said we would protect Medicare. 
Today, we will.
  America is truly in a new world of responsibility on Capitol Hill; 
responsibility to seniors who have worked hard all their lives and 
deserve to know that their health care benefits will be there for them; 
responsibility to middle age Americans who today are working with the 
expectation that the benefits will be for them; and, yes, to our 
children and to their children, to show them that we will make the 
tough decisions in concern for them, and not leave it to them to simply 
have to pay higher taxes.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the substitute and an ``aye'' 
vote on the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 149, 
noes 283, not voting 1, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 729]

                               AYES--149

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennelly
     Kleczka
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Moakley
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Skaggs
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Tejeda
     Thornton
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Ward
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--283

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Rush
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Wyden
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Tucker
       

                              {time}  1725

  Mrs. SLAUGHTER and Messrs. SERRANO, WYDEN, MINGE, and VOLKMER changed 
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. RUSH changed his vote from ``present'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
LaHood) having assumed the chair, Mr. Linder, Chairman of the Committee 
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that 
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2425) to amend 
title XVIII of the Social Security Act to preserve and reform the 
Medicare Program, pursuant to House Resolution 238, he reported the 
bill back to the House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of 
the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  The question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.

[[Page H 10462]]

  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


               motion to recommit offered by mr. gephardt

  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. GEPHARDT. I am opposed to the bill in its present form, Mr. 
Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Gephardt moves to recommit the bill H.R. 2425 to the 
     Committees on Ways and Means and Commerce with instructions 
     to report the same back to the House forthwith with the 
     following amendment:
       Strike section 15611 (and redesignate the succeeding 
     provisions and conform the table of contents accordingly).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt] 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to Members this motion 
is very simple. It knocks out the part B premium increases that our 
senior citizens will face if this measure passes. I think it is the 
least we can do before this measure passes.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Markey].
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, we will, with this one amendment, the only 
amendment we are allowed to make, and it automatically goes into the 
bill, ensure that Medicare part B premiums will only go up what current 
law requires. Otherwise, of the 37 million seniors on Medicare, 11 
million of them are widows living on under $8,000 a year. By the year 
2000, by the year 2002, this is a $300 a year hidden tax on them in 
order to put together a pile of money which will give someone making 
$350,000 a year 60 of these widows' money each year for a $19,000 tax 
break.
  Mr. Speaker, it is the only vote we can ask our colleagues to make, 
the only amendment we can make here today. We ask Republicans to give 
us a yes vote on this one page out of 900 pages that ensures that that 
premium increase is not unfairly used by 60 each of these elderly 
widows to provide for a tax cut of $19,000 a year in the year 2002 for 
those that do not need it, making over $350,000 in our society.
  Mr. Speaker, they built our country. They sacrificed for our country. 
They would not mind sacrificing again, but to ask for this sacrifice 
from the most vulnerable elderly widow population, in my opinion, is 
beneath what this House of Representatives should do here today. We ask 
for only one yes vote in the course of this entire debate, and it is on 
this very simple amendment. On this issue there is one thing that 
separates the senior citizens from the Republican majority, on this 
issue the senior citizens are right and they are wrong.

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Lewis].
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues to 
support this motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, I said to my Republican colleagues, they should not 
raise premiums for our seniors, not when they can find money to give 
tax breaks to the rich. That is not right. That is not fair. That is 
not just.
  How long? How long until they realize what they are doing to our 
seniors? Not long. Not long until our seniors know what they have done.
  Mr. Speaker, on this day, let the word go forth from this place into 
every State, every city, every town, every village, every hamlet, that 
it was the Republicans who voted to cut Medicare in order to give a 
huge tax break to the rich.
  The Republican plan is too radical, too extreme, it is too much. It 
is more than wrong. It is a shame and a disgrace. Do the right thing. 
Support the motion to recommit.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, the action that is being proposed today, 
and the action that is being proposed next week in Medicaid, together 
are really the beginning steps of dismantling these programs as we have 
known them.
  Mr. Speaker, when these programs were born, they were born on a 
simple premise that there would be a national standard of benefits that 
everyone in these programs would enjoy. With these changes that are 
being called for in Medicare today, and Medicaid next week, that 
premise is being taken away.
  In Medicare, the so-called new ideas on the other side mean that 
people can choose medical savings accounts, and if they decide that 
they are going to be well for the rest of their life, they can have 
money put into that account and have a high-deductible account.
  Mr. Speaker, there are many other choices. The problem is the choices 
are for a different standard of benefits.
  Then, Mr. Speaker, in Medicaid we are going to have a competition now 
in the State legislatures. The elderly are going to be there pleading 
for their cause. The children of our country are going to be there 
pleading for their cause, and the disabled Americans who now claim 15 
percent of Medicaid will be there pleading for their cause.
  Mr. Speaker, is this the kind of competition that we want to have go 
on around this country? These programs have worked because we have 
gotten everybody on a level playing field and the competition is not 
between the companies that can find the well people as opposed to the 
sick people. The competition should be between those competitors who 
can most efficiently organize the resources of our medical system.
  In the name of human decency, vote for this motion to recommit and 
vote against this bill which is wrong for America and wrong for the 
American people.
  Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition.
  Mr. Speaker, I must say with some sadness that we are ending this 
debate in the same spirit of misinformation that has characterized our 
opponents consistently. The fact is there is a provision in the 
medigrant program which provides that senior citizens at the poverty 
level, and below, have all of their Part B premium paid for by the 
taxpayers, 100 percent.
  So, the poorest of the widows that the gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Markey] spoke of will pay zero under our plan. Not one penny. My 
guess is the gentleman might even have known that, had he done any 
research, had he cared about the facts. This characterizes the whole 
plan.
  Mr. Speaker, another colleague spoke about tax cuts. There are no tax 
cuts today. There is no budget today. This is about Medicare.
  Now, we believe that saving Medicare matters; matters for the most 
human of reasons. Matters because of my mother-in-law, Virginia 
Ginther, who is 80 and on Medicare. It matters because of my mom and 
dad, Bob and Kit Gingrich, who are on Medicare.
  But Medicare is not just about the elderly. Medicare matters to the 
children of those who have retired. To my wife Marianne; to her 
brother, John; to my sister, Rob and her husband Dave; to my sister, 
Susan and her husband, Jim; to my brother, Randy, an his wife, Jill; to 
my sister, Kathy, and her brother, Jesse; to my sister-in-law, Marilyn, 
and her brother, Ray.
  They love their parents and they also know that someday they are 
going to retire. And they wish somebody had the guts in this city to 
start protecting the system, so it will not collapse when the baby 
boomers retire.
  But it is not even just about the baby boomers. Medicare is also 
about our children's future. My daughter, Kathy, and her husband, Paul; 
my daughter, Jackie, and her husband, Mark; my sister Candace. My 
younger relatives, a number of them were here the day I became sworn in 
as Speaker. Young kids, Lauren and Kevin; Emily and Susan; my nephews, 
Mark and John, and my niece, Holly.
  Do my colleagues know why it is important for them? Because if we 
continued to go down the irresponsible, unorganized, inefficient, 
bureaucratic, waste and fraud-filled system, the Health Care Financing 
Administration centralized bureaucracy, they would be crushed with 
taxes. They would be crushed with debt. They would pay higher interest 
on their student loans; higher interest on their house; higher interest 
on their car; they would be crushed in trying to open a business. And 
in the end, when their parents retired, the entire system would 
collapse and they would have to live through the mess.

[[Page H 10463]]


  Now, I am not going to abandon those children because of a bunch of 
30-second commercials that are dishonest demagoguery.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just say, and maybe this makes us different from 
the politicians who used to run this place, we want to solve problems 
for all Americans. We want no racial division. We want no class 
warfare. We want no conflicts between generations.
  The only solutions worthy of America are solutions that try to help 
all Americans. That is why the Medicare Preservation Act takes the long 
view; not just a Band-Aid to get through one more election, and then 
have another Band-Aid for one more election and hope that for your 
career, we get by so the collapse will occur after you retire. That is 
not what we are for.
  We want a solution to preserve and protect Medicare for the current 
seniors. We want a solution to set the stage for the baby boomers to 
retire with safety and security. We want a solution to protect younger 
Americans from higher taxes, higher interest rates, crushing debt, and 
a bankrupt Government.
  Let me mention just one other thing about how we got here and what we 
did. The Medicare Preservation Act creates MedicarePlus. It was a team 
effort. We did things differently. We asked the chairman of the 
Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer], and 
the chairman of the Committee on Commerce, the gentleman from Virginia 
[Mr. Bliley], to form a joint task force, and also the subcommittee 
chairmen, the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] and the gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis] to join that task force.
  We had able help from a number of Members, and I particularly single 
out the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert] who was originally chosen 
by Bob Michel and lead the health care project in 1993 and 1994, and 
the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] who has expressed 
extraordinary skill in this area.
  We met as a team. Not by committee jurisdiction, not by territorial 
boundaries, not driven by ego, but as a group working together.

  Mr. Speaker, I have to say we could never have done this without the 
staffs. In particular, I want to mention Ed Kutler, Howard Cohen, Mary 
McGrane, Chip Kahn, and also the legislative counsels, Noah Wofsy and 
Ed Grossman, because the truth is we are a team. We could not get the 
job done without the expert staff, and at the same time we represent 
the legal authority of our people.
  Mr. Speaker, we did one other thing that seems to truly confuse the 
press and shock our friends on the left. We did not ask one particular 
genius to hide in a room and design an entire thing. We did not have 
any Ira Magaziners on our side.
  We actually practiced listen, learn, help, and lead. We met with 
everybody. We met with the hospitals. We met with senior citizens. We 
held over a thousand--I know it is hard for those who have always 
believed in a closed system to understand this--we held over a thousand 
town hall meetings.
  We reached out to people who knew how to deliver health care. We 
listened to our Members. Frankly, we would have listened and worked 
with any Member, any Member willing to agree to the objective of saving 
this system for a generation. But we would not work with any Member 
whose only goal was to break up the structure and design an amendment 
which was pathetically incapable of saving this system.
  That is why we worked the way we worked. And I will say to my friends 
over here now, when we start the next project, for those Members who 
truly want to help us get there, our door is open. For those Members 
who just want to oppose and distort, our door is closed.
  Mr. Speaker, I will close with this line, because it goes back to the 
allegation of the gentleman from Massachusetts. The poverty line for 
single persons is $7,551. That means that virtually 90 percent of the 
widows that gentleman was referring to will, in fact, have 100 percent 
of their part B eligible for payment under medigrant, if they apply, 
and that is literally the way the system works.
  That is why not a single one of those poor widows has to pay a penny 
more. I only wish the gentleman from Massachusetts had one his homework 
before making such an absurd allegation.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge everyone to vote for the Medicare Preservation 
Act.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Without objection, the previous 
question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit 
offered by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt].
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 183, 
noes 249, not voting 1, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 730]

                               AYES--183

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     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
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     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
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--249

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     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
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     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

[[Page H 10464]]

     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     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
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Tucker
       

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. DOOLEY changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Gephardt was allowed to speak out of 
order.)


         WELCOME BACK TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM TEXAS, FRANK TEJEDA

  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
DeLay].
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker. I thank the distinguished minority leader for 
yielding to me. I just want the House to know that one of our 
colleagues has returned today because he felt this was a very important 
vote. He has been through a very serious operation and surgery, and he 
is just one of the neatest guys, and he understands how important this 
is. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Tejeda] has returned and is here 
today.


                         PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY

  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman will state his 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I am making an inquiry as to when the proper 
point would be to make a point of personal privilege on the privileges 
of the House to clarify a number of erroneous statements made about my 
statements in the well of the House before the recommittal vote.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Personal privilege for that reason is not in 
order at this point.
  Mr. MARKEY. I would ask the Speaker as to what the proper time would 
be.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will consult with the Chair at 
a later point.
  The question is on the passage of the bill. Under the rule, the yeas 
and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 231, 
nays 201, not voting 1, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 731]

                               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
     Cox
     Crane
     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
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     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)
     Linder
     Livingston
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     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
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     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

                               NAYS--201

     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
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     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)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     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
     Saxton
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Tucker
       

                              {time}  1822

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________