[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 45 (Thursday, March 28, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H3029-H3045]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
HEALTH COVERAGE AVAILABILITY AND AFFORDABILITY ACT OF 1996
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 392 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 392
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R.
3103) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to improve
portability and continuity of health insurance coverage in
the group and individual markets, to combat waste, fraud, and
abuse in health insurance and health care delivery, to
promote the use of medical savings accounts, to improve
access to long-term care services and coverage, to simplify
the administration of health insurance, and for other
purposes. An amendment in the nature of a substitute
consisting of the text of H.R. 3160, modified by the
amendment specified in part 1 of the report of the Committee
on Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as
adopted. All points of order against the bill, as amended,
and against its consideration are waived (except those
arising under section 425(a) of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974). The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except:
(1) two hours of debate on the bill, as amended, with 45
minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means,
45 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Commerce, and 30
minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Economic and
Educational Opportunities; (2) the further amendment
specified in part 2 of the Committee on Rules, if offered by
the minority leader or his designee, which shall be in order
without intervention of any point of order (except those
arising under section 425(a) of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974) or demand for division of the question, shall be
considered as read, and shall be separately debatable for one
hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit, which 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 Florida [Mr. Goss] is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts
[Mr. Moakley], the ranking member of the Committee on Rules, 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. Speaker, the Rules Committee has carefully crafted this rule to
allow for ample debate on the major issues of health insurance reform
without opening ourselves up to a free-for-all. The purpose is to pass
a streamlined bill that accomplishes meaningful, results without
getting bogged down in a replay of last Congress' frustrating and
fruitless health reform debate.
Mr. Speaker, this rule is a modified closed rule that allows us to
knit together the work product of five major committees. This rule
makes in order as base text for the purpose of amendment the text of
H.R. 3160, modified by a technical amendment printed in part 1 of the
Rules Committee report. The rule waives all points of order against the
bill as amended and against its consideration, except those arising
under section 425(e) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, relating
to unfunded mandates. The rule provides for a total of 2 hours of
debate, with 45 minutes equally divided between the chairman and
ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means, 45 minutes equally
divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on
Commerce, and 30 minutes equally divided between the chairman and
ranking member of the Committee on Economic and Educational
Opportunities. The rule allows the minority to offer the amendment in
the nature of a substitute, as referenced to the Congressional Record
in part 2 of our Rules Committee report. That amendment shall not be
subject to any point of order--except relating to section 425(e) of the
budget act--or to any demand for a division of the question. The
amendment shall be debatable for 1 hour, equally divided between a
proponent and an opponent. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the bill as amended and on any further amendment thereto, to
final passage, without intervening motion, except as specified. The
rule provides for the traditional right of the minority to offer one
motion to recommit, with or without instructions, but instructions may
be offered by the minority leader or a designee.
Finally, this rule provides that the yeas and nays are ordered on
final passage and that the provisions of clause 5(c) of rule XXI shall
not apply to votes on the bill, amendments thereto or conference
reports thereon. The purpose of this last provision, Mr. Speaker, is
one of an abundance of caution with respect to the new House rule
requiring a supermajority vote for any amendment or measure containing
a Federal income tax rate increase. The provision in question in the
bill is a popular one with Members on both sides of the aisle. It
closes the loophole that currently allows people to renounce their
citizenship to avoid paying U.S. taxes.
[[Page H3030]]
Although most people might agree that bringing a currently exempt
group of people under an existing income tax rate is not an increase in
Federal income tax rates, and thus would not be subject to the new
House rule, we have been advised that some might disagree. And possibly
the MSA withdrawal penalty could be construed by some as a tax rate
increase but I do not believe that was what the rule was aiming at.
And so, to ensure that this important provision does not jeopardize
passage of this bill, we are providing this protection from the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support this cooperative product, to
provide genuine health insurance reform for working Americans. The
committees of this House have taken the bill from the other body and
built upon it, achieving a better product without overloading it to the
point of failure. This bill improves on the other body's bill by
addressing and fixing the problem of affordability. This bill ensures
that individuals will not be denied health insurance if they change
jobs. It ensures that individuals who move to another job that doesn't
offer coverage can buy an individual policy without fear of preexisting
condition restrictions. These portability provisions are the
cornerstone, but we have done more because we recognize that if we
provide access to the uninsured without making it affordable, we have
accomplished nothing.
Today, 85 percent of the uninsured work for small businesses. We
respond by allowing small employers to join together to purchase health
insurance. This bill allows self-employed individuals to deduct 50
percent of their health insurance premiums, giving them the same
advantage larger companies already enjoy. By establishing medical
savings accounts, this bill offers individuals more control over their
own health care costs. We propose to limit lawsuit abuse--which drives
up health care costs and makes insurance more expensive for everyone--
and attack fraud and abuse, with stiff penalties on those who cheat the
system. It's a solid package of real reform.
Mr. Speaker, this bill had not even been produced before opponents
began tearing it apart.
The same folks who in the last Congress tried to engineer socialized
medicine, Government-run medicine that tells you when you are sick,
what doctor you must see and what pills you must take. Well, those
folks have joined together again to deride our plan which they said
would ruin the prospect for health care reform. I believe their goal is
to have Government run all of your lives. But this bill is a positive
set of proposals for meaningful and doable health care reform now.
Support the rule; support the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out today's rule is one more
closed rule in a year of 100 percent restrictive rules. I just want to
remind Members of this because of the orations we used to hear from the
other side on closed rules.
This year, every rule that has come out of the Committee on Rules so
far has been restricted in some form. It also waives the three-fifth
vote required for tax increases, which my Republican colleagues like so
much, they wanted to make it an amendment to the Constitution. If the
three-fifth vote for tax increases is that important, Mr. Speaker, why
are Republicans waiving it on this bill? In fact, this is the second
time the three-fifths vote has come up and it is the second time that
they have waived it.
{time} 1645
Mr. Speaker, today we have a great opportunity. We have the chance to
make a huge difference in the lives of millions of Americans. We have
the chance to pass a bipartisan health bill that will do two things
that will affect every single American. Today, if Republicans will join
with the Democrats, we could pass a bill that would enable more people
to take their health care with them when they leave a job, and limit
preexisting conditions so that people are not denied health care just
because they have been previously ill.
But, Mr. Speaker, even though this opportunity is right at our
fingertips in the form of the Kennedy-Kassebaum-Roukema bill, it is
about to slip away. It is because my Republican colleagues have loaded
up a very excellent bill with a lot of goodies for special interests.
My Republican colleagues, Mr. Speaker, have also added medical savings
accounts which will take over $2 billion from Medicare and spend it on
tax breaks for younger and wealthier people, and they have added
controversial malpractice provisions which will virtually ensure the
bill's veto.
Mr. Speaker, over the last year I have had a lot of hands-on
experience with the American health care system, and I know how
important good health care is, and I know how important good health
insurance is. I can tell my colleagues there is not a single person in
this country that does not worry that they may lose their health care
if they change jobs, or even worse, they would be denied their health
care coverage just because they have had a previous illness.
But this Republican-controlled House is once again about to put the
good of special interests before the good of the Nation.
Mr. Speaker, this is a time of great uncertainty in our country.
Today many workers wake up each morning wondering whether they will
have a job at the end of the day and even whether they will be able to
provide their family health care. Today health care costs are
skyrocketing, and the Republican House is turning a blind eye to the
needs of working men and women.
But we have heard over and over again our Republican colleagues talk
about providing opportunity for America's middle class. Mr. Speaker, if
ever there was a chance to do that, this is the bill. This is our
chance to do something for the people of this country, and we should
take it.
I urge my colleagues to defeat the rule, defeat the previous
question. It is time to put the American people and their health care
before politics.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I think there are a couple of points that need to be
made here.
Technically of course, at the very onset of this rule debate, this is
not a closed rule which we are debating. This is a modified closed
rule. What is the difference? The difference in the importance of a
modified closed rule is that the modified closed rule allows their side
the opportunity to offer a complete substitute. In addition to that, it
allows them to make a motion to recommit. There is certainly plenty of
room for them to maneuver over there, to offer the kind of amendments
or changes that they feel are important.
Second, Mr. Speaker, I think a few words should be said in response
to the comments made about the waiver of clause 5(c) of rule XXI in
this rule against the bill and the amendments thereto. As my colleagues
are aware, clause 5(c) requires a three-fifths vote on the adoption or
passage of any bill, joint resolution, amendment or conference report
carrying, quote, a Federal income tax rate increase, unquote.
We do not feel there is any provision in this bill that raises
Federal income tax rates as construed by the legislative history on
this rule. As the section-by-section analysis of this rule explained
when the rule was adopted on January 4 of 1995, and I quote:
For purposes of these rules the term ``Federal income tax
rate increase'' is, for example, an increase in the
individual income tax rates established in section 1 and the
corporate income tax rates established in section 11,
respectfully, of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
Those are commonly understood marginal tax rates, or income bracket
tax rates, applicable to various minimum and maximum income dollar
amounts for individuals and corporations.
In response to the letter from the ranking minority member of the
Committee on Rules to the chairman last year requesting a clarification
of this rule, the Committee on Rules published such a clarification in
the report on the rule for the reconciliation bill. The bottom lien of
that clarification reads as follows, and again I quote:
It is the intent of this committee that the term ``Federal
income tax rate increase'' should be narrowly construed and
confined to the rate specified in those two sections, that is
sections 1 and 11 of the Internal Revenue Code, respectfully,
establishing marginal rates for individuals and corporations.
Nothing in the bill before us increases either the individual income
[[Page H3031]]
tax rates contained in section 1 of the Code or the corporate income
tax rates contained in section 11 of the Code. Thus, according to the
Committee on Rules clarification, as requested by the ranking minority
member, this bill does not trigger a three-fifths vote on either the
minority substitute or on the bill itself. However, as was mentioned in
the opening statement on this rule, the waiver was provided out of an
abundance of caution to avoid unnecessary points of order.
Explanation and Discussion of Clause 5(c), Rule XXI Waiver
(Excerpted From the Rules Committee's Report on H. Res. 245, the
Reconciliation Rule)
As indicated in the preceding paragraph, the Committee has
provided in this rule that the provisions of clause 5(c) of
House Rule XXI, which require a three-fifths vote on any
bill, joint resolution, amendment or conference report
``carrying a Federal income tax rate increase,'' shall not
apply to the votes on passage of H.R. 2491, or to the votes
any amendment thereto or conference report thereon.
The suspension of clause 5(c) of rule XXI is not being done
because there are any Federal income tax rate increases
contained in the reconciliation substitute being made in
order as base text by this rule. As the Committee on Ways and
Means has pointed out in its portion of the report on the
reconciliation bill--
``The Committee has carefully reviewed the provisions of
Title XIII and XIV of the revenue reconciliation provisions
approved by the Committee to determine whether any of these
provisions constitute a Federal income tax rate increase
within the meaning of the House Rules. It is the opinion of
the Committee that there is no provision of Titles XIII and
XIV of the revenue reconciliation provisions that constitutes
a Federal income tax rate increase within the meaning of
House Rule XXI, 5(c) of (d).''
Nevertheless, the Committee on Rules has suspended the
application of clause 5(c) as a precautionary measure to
avoid unnecessary points of order that might otherwise arise
over confusion or misinterpretations of what is meant by an
income tax rate increase.
Such point of order was raised and overruled on the final
passage vote of H.R. 1215, the omnibus tax bill, on April 15,
1995. The ranking minority member of the Rules Committee
subsequently wrote to the chairman of this Committee
requesting a clarification of the rule. An exchange of
correspondence with the Parliamentarian and the Counsel of
the Joint Tax Committee was subsequently released by the
chairman of this Committee on June 13, 1995, regarding the
ruling and the provision of the bill which gave rise to the
point of order.
The Committee would simply conclude this discussion by
citing from the section-by-section analysis of H. Res. 6,
adopting House Rules for the 104th Congress, placed in the
Congressional Record at the time the rules were adopted on
January 4, 1995. With respect to clauses 5(c) and (d) which
require a three-fifths vote on any income tax rate increase
and prohibit consideration of any retroactive income tax rate
increase, respectively:
``For purposes of these rules, the term ``Federal income
tax rate increase'' is, for example, an increase in the
individual income tax rates established in section 1, and the
corporate income tax rates established in section 11,
respectively, of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986,
(Congressional Record, Jan, 4, 1995, p. H-34)''.
The rates established by those sections are the commonly
understood ``marginal' tax rates or income ``bracket'' tax
rates applicable to various minimum and maximum income dollar
amounts for individuals and corporations. It is the intent of
this committee that the term ``Federal income tax rate
increase'' should be narrowly construed and confined to the
rates specified in those two sections. As indicated in the
Ways and Means Committee's report, those rates have not been
increased by any provision contained in H.R. 2491 as made in
order as base text by this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Hastert].
Mr. HASTERT. I think the gentleman from Colorado for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I think we need to talk about how this bill came about
and what is in it and what is not in it. The bill is an amalgam of
ideas that have been tested around this House for the last 5 or 6
years, things that made eminent good sense.
Now this year of course the House has been working on Medicare and
Medicaid, and insurance reform has been on the back burner, but we have
always tried to use the issue and work the issue of portability so that
we could have people move from group to group and group to individual.
Now, in the Senate bill there was some controversy with the group to
individual because people who were basically healthy, when they lose
their jobs, many times do not go out and buy a very expensive insurance
policy. People who are sick, or if they are 15 years of age, and three
kids, and a wife who is going to deliver, or if they are 55 years of
age and have a preexisting condition, and need to go into immediate
health insurance coverage, they are going to go out and buy that
insurance policy, probably at whatever cost. So we thought that it was
very, very important that we design and change the group to individual
policy so that only sick people would not buy individual insurance,
that we could hold down the cost so that insurance can be available and
affordable to everybody.
So, the way that we structure group to individual allows for that,
but it is really the central theme of what this bill does.
Health care availability is something that we all strive for. We know
that there are a lot of Mercedes and Rolls Royces out there that are
available. The problem is people do not drive them because they cannot
afford them. Well, my colleagues, that is the same way in health care.
If someone cannot afford the health care, if they cannot afford that
insurance policy, then they do not buy it, and those folks riding
around in Mercedes and Rolls Royces certainly have a lot of money to
spend, and they can probably afford anything. But most of those people
are people that do not have jobs.
So that is the issue. How do we take people who need a health care
bill and they do not have a job?
Our approach to that is an approach of a type of policy that they can
buy that is a low-cost policy, maybe a deductible, but something that
is affordable, not for just people who are sick, but people who are
well. So the theme of affordability and availability is central to
everything that we have put in this package, and my colleagues know
this package goes a little bit beyond the Senate package, but it is
because we think that the Senate package was lacking.
We have had four committees that have worked on this bill and four
committees that went out and structured things that were within their
jurisdiction and moved legislation through their committees, had
hearings, subcommittee hearings, full committee hearings, took
amendments, listened to amendments, went through the debate and moved
out a package; each bill within the jurisdiction of that committee. The
Committee on Rules then put those three bills together, plus some
information or piece of legislation that came out of the Committee on
the Judiciary and put it together in the Rules Committee yesterday.
Now what is the difference between this bill, the House Republican
bill sponsored by the chairmen of the four committees and subcommittee
chairman, and the Senate bill? For one thing, we have medical savings
accounts, and my colleagues will hear people over here saying, ``Boy,
medical savings accounts are only for rich people,'' and that is just a
fraud.
Medical savings accounts are for everybody. The average employer cost
per employee family in this country is about $4,500 a year. If my
colleagues had a $4,500 savings or $4,500 life insurance policy,
Medisave, a policy, probably my colleagues would take a $2,000
deductible and buy a high deductible policy; my colleagues would take
that other $2,500 and put it in their medical savings account.
Now is that for rich people? No, that is for the average worker. That
is for the guy who carries a lunch bucket to work. But a fellow or a
person or a family that wants to control his own choice in health care,
that does not want an HMO or an insurance company telling him what
doctor to go to, or what hospital to go to, or what type of treatment
to get, somebody that wants to control their own health care choice,
and with a medical savings account we do just that.
Now if my colleagues do not spend that money, then they get to keep
it, and that is real portability, because if my colleagues had this
insurance policy for a couple of years and they have $10,000 or $15,000
or $20,000 in their medical savings account, that gives them real
portability. My colleagues can move that and take it wherever they
want, or buy insurance with it, pay for health care costs with it.
Also, this bill has long-term care expense so people, seniors, can
take their assets and move it into long-term care, or if they have a
fatal disease, they can take their life insurance, cash it in,
[[Page H3032]]
and buy long-term care or health care with it.
We also have small group employer, so the 85 percent of the people
who do not have insurance today that live in families that work for
small businesses, that they can go to the marketplace and get the same
break that big businesses get.
Now this is commonsense reform, my colleagues. It is something that
everybody can work with, it makes health care not just available, but
affordable. I hope that my colleagues would vote for this rule.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Rhode Island [Mr. Reed].
Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Republican effort
to sabotage realistic and meaningful health care this year. Senators
Kennedy and Kassebaum have sponsored health insurance reform
legislation that is a positive first step to removing the barriers for
coverage for thousands of Rhode Islanders and millions of Americans.
I am cosponsor of the Kennedy-Kassebaum bill. It will be offered as a
Democratic substitute, and this bill would prohibit insurance companies
from dropping coverage when a person changes jobs or preventing
coverage if a person has a preexisting condition. In addition, this
bill would increase the tax deduction for the self-employed from 30
percent to 80 percent by the year 2002. It is also estimated that this
bill would help 25 million Americans each year, with minimal impact on
individual premiums or the federal budget. In Rhode Island this would
be terribly helpful for thousands of Almacs workers who were recently
laid off when the store closed, a supermarket chain.
{time} 1700
These are individuals that need this type of coverage. Regrettably,
House Republicans decided against taking up this bipartisan bill. House
Republicans chose instead to cater to special interests and consider a
bill with controversial and costly provisions. This Republican plan
will doom the prospect of meaningful health care reform this year in
the Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I urge rejection of this measure.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. REED. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is very simple. There was a deal cut in the
U.S. Senate, the Kennedy-Kassebaum bill. President Clinton agreed to
Kennedy-Kassebaum. All the Republicans in the Senate agreed to Kennedy-
Kassebaum. The Kennedy-Kassebaum bill does three things. It says to the
ordinary citizens of this country that if they are willing to pay their
health care premium if they change their jobs, they are going to
continue to get health care. If they lose their job, they are going to
continue to get health care. If they get sick, they will continue to
get health care.
With the Republican substitute, the Republicans have taken a stake
and thrown it into the heart of health care reform. This notion of
supporting MSA's, this notion of including caps on damages so if you
lose your leg you are only going to pay people $250,000, ends up doing
one thing; that is, throwing off the track the ability of the American
people, once and for all, to get needed health care coverage.
All we are trying to do is enrich the pockets of the doctors, enrich
the pockets of the lawyers, and take away from the serious effort of
getting the people that do not have health insurance or that lose
health insurance simply because they get sick, simply because they lose
their job, taking that hope away.
We have the opportunity to get the job done. Let us come together,
and let us support the Democratic substitute which will once again put
health reform back on track.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Maryland [Mr. Cardin].
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from
Massachusetts, for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, this is a bad rule. I thought we were going to get a
rule and a bill before us that will let us deal with health insurance
portability and preexisting conditions, that will let us deal with the
problems that our constituents are facing of losing their jobs and
losing their health benefits, and being unable to get health insurance
without preexisting condition restrictions. Democrats and Republicans
agreed to deal with that issue.
Yet this rule makes it less likely we will get to that day. This rule
does not permit any amendments to be offered. Many amendments were
suggested in the Committee on Rules, that would help improve the bill
that has been brought forward.
Let me just mention a couple of the areas that troubled me. The bill
preempts State laws in many, many ways. I thought we were supposed to
be returning power to our States. This bill makes it very difficult for
our States to respond to health insurance problems. In my own State, we
have adopted small group market reform. Yet the provisions in the
underlying bill would seriously jeopardize Maryland's ability to
continue that small market reform.
I had offered an amendment in the Committee on Rules for fraud and
abuse. There are new provisions in this bill that make it more
difficult for the Justice Department to bring fraud cases against
providers that are cheating. Yet the Committee on Rules did not make
that amendment in order.
The group-to-individual provisions need to be improved. They are too
restrictive to a person who loses their health insurance and must
provide an individual plan. This rule does not allow us the opportunity
to go forward with the type of portability that we need. The only
option before us is to support the Democratic substitute if we want
portability and eliminating preexisting conditions.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from California [Ms. Eshoo].
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. I had
hoped to have an amendment made in order which would raise the lifetime
benefit cap on health insurance from $1 million to $10 million. My
amendment would have benefited the 1,500 Americans a year who exceed
the current cap, and some 10,000 Americans between now and the year
2000. It would save Medicaid $7 billion over 5 years, and the cost is
small. The American Academy of Actuaries estimates a 1-percent to 2-
percent increase in premiums.
Mr. Speaker, a medical catastrophe could befall any one of us here in
this Chamber and in this body, any one of our children, our parents,
our loved ones, at any time. Many times I say to myself, ``There but
for the grace of God go I.'' Not being able to have sufficient health
insurance coverage severely compounds the catastrophe. A point that
needs to be made is the plight of the distinguished actor Christopher
Reeve, who is well known to all of us. In honor of his courage, I
introduced legislation upon which the amendment was based, named the
Christopher Reeve Health Insurance Reform Act.
Mr. Speaker, every day we see inflation adjustments for other needed
services: for consumer products, for education. In some of these cases,
the adjustment reflects the reality of current costs. In others, they
offer protection to the American people. My amendment would have done
both. I am disappointed not for myself, but for the people of this
Nation that my amendment was not allowed under this rule.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the hardworking
families in my district, families who struggle to pay their bills, work
hard, and they play by the rules. They live in fear of losing their
health insurance if they change jobs. They cannot get health care
coverage because of a preexisting condition. These families are a pink
slip away from disaster.
I went to visit the Tomaso Construction Co. in my district. I met
with workers there, and a worker said to me that he was frightened to
death that he may lose his job. He has a child with a terminal illness.
He stays up nights worrying that he will lose his job and will not be
able to have the health insurance he needs for his child. Today
Congress has the chance to prove that we are here to help working
families.
The bipartisan Kennedy-Kassebaum-Roukema bill expands access to
health
[[Page H3033]]
insurance. It increases portability, it limits a health insurance
company's ability to deny coverage because of preexisting medical
conditions. Rather than helping these hardworking families, the
Republican leadership has hijacked the bill to make a payoff to their
special interest cronies. The bill provides a big windfall to the
Golden Rule Insurance Company by including a provision for medical
savings accounts. The Wall Street Journal said today that Golden Rule
was the third biggest corporate giver to the Republican party in the
last election. The Washington Times, not a liberal newspaper, says,
``Riders imperil health reform.''
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this special interest
payoff and support the Democratic substitute. It will provide real
health care security to the hardworking families of this country.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy].
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, the bill reported out under this rule
preempts and therefore eliminates consumer protections existing in
State law for employers and employees insuring through associations or
multiple employer arrangements known as MEWAs. This preemption of State
law is a horrible idea, and deserves separate consideration and debate
while the bill is before the House.
The consequence of allowing insuring entities to operate without
effective State oversight creates a situation where small businesses
will be ripped off. Folks who believe they are insured by their
company's plan will find out they are not, often after they have racked
up ruinous health bills.
Mr. Speaker, I am the only Member of this Chamber to have served as a
State insurance commissioner. I know full well people will be hit with
fraudulent insurance practices if this bill is enacted. I have seen it
happen. In the home State of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], a
fraudulent entity collected nearly $35 million in premiums from 7,000
employers. It collapsed, leaving 40,000 employees without coverage, and
$29 million in unpaid claims.
Why in the world would the majority want to wipe out the State laws
developed to keep this from happening again? Why in the world would the
Committee on Rules not allow separate consideration on this issue? Time
and time again we have heard the new majority hail the role of State
government, yet today's bill wipes out the efforts of States to protect
small businesses and the workers they ensure. Vote ``no'' on this bad
bill.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Fawell].
Mr. FAWELL. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has made the statement that it is a
terrible thing to preempt State law, but the gentleman must be aware
that under the ERISA statute, most of private health care in this
Nation is indeed a situation where State law has been preempted, and
employer-provided health care is basically self-insured, or some with
fully insured plans. So this is not the evil thing that one would
think.
All we are suggesting is that small employers might have the same
advantages as large employers have. That is all.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Georgia [Ms. McKinney].
Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, this Congress has a historic opportunity to pass
limited, but meaningful health insurance reform. Just an hour from now,
however, we'll begin to debate a bill specifically constructed by the
Republican leadership to sabotage any meaningful reform this Congress.
Rather than supporting the bipartisan Kennedy-Kassebaum-Roukema bill,
the G.O.P. House leaders insist on pushing their own bill which
contains controversial provisions like medical savings accounts.
And why medical savings accounts? Just follow the money. The Golden
Rule Insurance Co. has given more than $1.4 million to the G.O.P. and,
coincidentally, Golden Rule just happens to be the premier company
peddling medical savings accounts.
Mr. Speaker, the old saying is true: He who has the gold, rules. And
while the American people want serious health insurance reform, all
they are getting from the G.O.P. is cash-and-carry government.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from New York [Mr. Engel].
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for
yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, for the whole day today the Republican leadership
blocked consideration of a raise in the minimum wage. Then the majority
whip, in relation to my speech that I made, said, ``This is blatant
politics and blatant hypocrisy.'' His words clearly should have been
taken down, but the Speaker disallowed it.
Now the Republican leadership shamefully is not allowing us to
consider a clean version of the Kennedy-Kassebaum-Roukema health reform
bill, even though the American people want it. The American people want
to know that if they lose their jobs, they can continue to have health
insurance. The American people want to know that if there is a
preexisting condition used as a excuse not to give them or a loved one
health insurance, that that cannot be used as an excuse anymore. It has
bipartisan support in the Senate, and is supported by the President. It
represents the minimum that can be done to provide additional health
security to the American people.
Again, the Republican leadership is blocking it, taking this bill and
weighing it down with all kinds of strange things that do not belong in
this bill. They know it is going to kill the bill. That is their real
motive, to kill this bill. They can pretend they are for health care
reform, but in reality what they are doing to this bill kills the bill,
and the American people ought to know that.
Republicans have been talking a lot about how they want to reconnect
with average working people. Is this the way they do it? By blocking
the Roukema bill, this demonstrates that the Republican leadership are
more interested in political gain than in passing legislation that
helps the American worker. This is really shameful.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York [Ms. Slaughter].
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me.
Mr. Speaker, as we debate the merits of health insurance reform, it
is crucial that we keep in mind a newly emerging and very important
aspect of health insurance reform, that is genetic information and the
potential for insurance discrimination. Last December, I introduced
H.R. 2748, the Genetic Information Non-discrimination in Health
Insurance Act--a bill to prevent the potentially devastating
consequences of discrimination based on genetic information.
I am very pleased to learn that both the Republican version of health
insurance reform and the Democratic substitute contain some of the
protections I introduced in my bill last fall.
While the provision included in both versions of the legislation on
the floor today is not as comprehensive as those outlined in my bill,
it represents a crucial first step in providing protection for people
with predisposition to genetic disease.
As chair of the Women's Health Task Force, I closely followed the
reports last year indicating that increased funding for breast cancer
research had resulted in the discovery of the BRCA-1 gene-link to
breast cancer. While the obvious benefits of the discovery include
potential lifesaving early detection and intervention, the inherent
dangers of the improper use of genetic information are just becoming
evident.
We must learn from the lessons of the past. We must remember the
disastrous results of discriminating against those genetically
predisposed to sickle cell anemia. And, we must guard against history
repeating itself. There are recent reports of people with a family
history of breast cancer afraid of getting tested for fear of losing
access to insurance. We must assure our citizens that advances in our
understanding of human genetics will be used to promote health and not
to promote discrimination. Both the lessons of the past and the recent
discoveries point to the need for comprehensive Federal regulations.
[[Page H3034]]
The bill I introduced last December would prevent discrimination by
prohibiting insurance providers from: denying or canceling health
insurance coverage, or varying the terms and conditions of health
insurance coverage, on the basis of genetic information; requesting or
requiring an individual to disclose genetic information, and disclosing
genetic information without prior written consent.
Mr. Speaker, the provisions contained in the legislation being
considered today prohibit the use of genetic information as a
preexisting condition. I applaud the inclusion of that aspect of my
legislation in the insurance reform packages. However, the provisions
are limited in two major respects. One, the pool of people covered by
this legislation is restricted to those in the employment market. Two,
the legislation does not address the important issue of privacy
protection.
I hope that my colleagues and I can continue to work together to
apply the prohibitions on genetic discrimination across the board to
cover all insurance policies and to prohibit disclosure of genetic
information.
As therapies are developed to cure genetic diseases, and potentially
to save lives, the women and men affected must be assured access to
genetic testing and therapy without concern that they will be
discriminated against. As legislators, I believe it is our
responsibility to ensure that protection against genetic discrimination
is guaranteed. Today, we will take the first step in that direction. I
invite my colleagues to join me in making the commitment to ensuring
the passage of comprehensive protections against genetic
discrimination.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, for those who are distressed about the opportunity they
might have or might not have a chance to get at the bill known as the
Kassebaum-Kennedy-Roukema, I believe it is the substitute that is going
to be made in order, and they should take it up with the leadership on
the other side of the aisle.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the
distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis].
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me.
Mr. Speaker, as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health and
Environment of the Committee on Commerce, I truly believe that
reforming our Nation's health care system is one of the most important
issues before Congress today.
Mr. Speaker, who does not support insurance portability? Who does not
believe that people with preexisting conditions have a right to
purchase health insurance at a reasonable price, just like everyone
else?
{time} 1715
And who can argue that fraud in our health care system has to be
controlled or that unnecessary paperwork should be eliminated? The
legislation before us today would address these and other important
issues so that they could be enacted into law this year.
Mr. Speaker, our legislation is a starting point for reform, a
reasonable beginning in resolving our Nation's health care problems.
The bill in the Senate is also a reasonable beginning, and I commend
Chairwoman Kassebaum for her work, but it does not go far enough. Even
the President's bill in the last Congress addressed administrative
simplicity and medical malpractice reform. Those, along with waste,
fraud, and abuse, are consensus items.
If we enact into law, Mr. Speaker, these important consensus items,
then many Americans will certainly benefit. I urge my colleagues to
show the American people that we truly want change by supporting this
rule and acting now on health reform.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from California [Ms. Woolsey].
(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, how often do we get a clear shot at helping
25 million people? Twenty-five million. Today, we have that chance. We
can help them stay healthy. We can help them end their fear. We can
help them achieve their dreams. Unfortunately, however, some Members of
this body do not want us to have a clear shot with a clean bill. They
want to gum up the works with proposals we do not need, proposals that
doom this entire bill.
Why would they do this? Two words, Mr. Speaker: Special interests.
Mr. Speaker, many Democrats agree, many Republicans agree, the
President agrees. Do not gum up the works, do not support special
interests over our interests. Twenty-five million people are waiting.
Do not let them down. Vote against this rule.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Salmon].
Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to strongly endorse this rule.
I would like to talk about one particular component of the piece of
legislation that is exposed in the rule, and that is medical savings
accounts. It truly is an idea whose time has come.
Let us face the facts. Those on the other side had more confidence in
bureaucracy and the heavy-handed government than they do in
individuals. In fact, they do not want to give individuals these kinds
of choices because they believe that Washington knows better what their
needs are than they know what their own needs are for themselves.
Medical savings accounts are being demanded by people out there. In
fact, there are some 3,000 companies who are already offering medical
savings accounts.
Mr. Speaker, the only problem is our tax policy is discriminatory. It
does not give the same kind of tax advantage to people wanting to
establish medical savings accounts as it does to those companies
providing premium coverage for traditional health care. Despite the
charges of the opponents, MSA's are great for sick people and for the
less well off. Why? Because you get first-dollar coverage.
It astounds me the arguments that the other side has used against
medical savings accounts saying that only healthy people would flock to
them. Why? When you have a high deductible health care policy that
kicks in when your medical savings account ends, you are going to get
first-dollar coverage, and sick people would want it as well as healthy
people.
Finally, I would just like to say that they will work, by cutting out
the bureaucracy, the redtape and the paperwork and replacing it with a
free market. Individuals will be able to shop around and get the best
deal that they can. When my last child was born, we had a traditional
health care policy that paid $3,500 for the delivery. Two months later
my sister-in-law had a baby at the same hospital, same doctor, yet they
negotiated a cash payment of $1,500. They work.
Let us talk about special interests, let us talk about the fact that
the biggest interest group against this is managed care. Why? Because
they would rather see the savings go into the managed care, the HMO
programs, than they would back in the individual's pockets. Let us get
rid of the heavy-handed government and let us really think about
special interests and who is in whose pocket.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts,
and I would simply say that every time we address this health reform
question, the American people see us collapse. We do not have to
collapse today, Mr. Speaker. We can support the Kassebaum-Kennedy-
Roukema bill in the Democratic substitute, which allows for
portability, and it protects those with preexisting conditions.
In addition, it recognizes the small businessperson who has been
working an striving. It allows them an 80-percent deduction for their
small business health insurance by the year 2002.
Mr. Speaker, let us stop the game. We know that the medical savings
plans are simply for those who are healthy and wealthy. Let us face it.
Whenever we hear from our seniors and those that are least able to take
care of themselves, they are in these HMO plans and they cap them out,
the doctors say I cannot see you because I have limits.
We need real health reform. Let us provide the American worker with
portability and the opportunity to be covered for a preexisting
condition.
[[Page H3035]]
Likewise, let us not take the State administrators out of determining
whether the rates are too high when you have to pay for an insurance
plan. It is time to support a bill that the Senate will support.
The New York Times said, health reform now. But the Republican plan
will kill it. Let us be bipartisan. Support the Kennedy-Kassebaum-
Roukema bill, which is a Democratic substitute, and make sure that we
do not collapse on the American people. Provide them with good health
reform, good insurance, portability, and the coverage of preexisting
disease.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Democratic substitute to
the Health Coverage Availability Act. This bill contains the
portability provisions found in the Kassebaum-Kennedy-Roukema proposal,
and it also increases the tax deduction for the self-employed health
insurance costs, which is 30 to 80 percent in 2002, instead of the 50
percent offered in the Republican bill. I believe that this promise of
portability assists the American worker who changes jobs and needs
health insurance. I also support increasing the tax deduction to 80
percent because it would grant to the self-employed the tax favored
status for approximately the same portion of their health insurance
costs as is enjoyed by many employees.
This Democratic substitute has the provisions that hold bipartisan
support. I believe that we should work together to pass some meaningful
health care reform this year, and we should not attach controversial
provisions that will defeat the bill. Contrary to what supporters of
MSA's claim, medical savings accounts are not equitable. Medical
savings accounts will be used primarily by upper income healthy
individuals who can afford the high deductible.
I do not support MSA's, because medical savings accounts would appeal
mainly to healthy people, and this would leave less healthy people to
buy medical coverage at increased cost. This will obviously make health
insurance more expensive. This so-called reform measure goes against
the goal of real health care reform, which is to create a more
standardized health package for everyone and equalize the less healthy
and the poorer with those more able. The bill generally prohibits
punitive damages in cases involving drug and medical device
manufacturers or sellers whose products had been approved by the Food
and Drug Administration. Prohibiting punitive damages for
pharmaceutical and manufacturers of medical devices takes away their
ongoing responsibility to public health after they have received FDA
approval.
The Republican bill allows small employers to band together to
purchase coverage for their workers but then exempts them from State
taxation. I support such associations, however, this bill would take
these co-ops out of State administration, and thus makes State level
health reform more difficult.
The substitute amendment like the Republican bill assures group to
group and group to individual portability. It limits the exclusion for
preexisting conditions to 12 months and provides that the exclusion
would be reduced by the period of time the person was covered in his or
her previous job.
The substitute prohibits insurance carriers and HMO's from denying
coverage to employers with two or more employees and prohibits
employment-based health plans from excluding any employee from coverage
based on health status. This substitute amendment also requires health
plans to renew coverage for groups and individuals as long as the
premiums are paid. All of these measures help to assure some
significant health reform for Americans.
If we are truly committed to health care reform, then I urge my
colleagues to pass the substitute amendment. Thank you, Mr. Speaker,
and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Lipinski].
(Mr. LIPINSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Medical Savings Accounts.
Unfortunately, MSAs have become a polarizing and partisan issue in this
House. By giving MSAs tax treatment that is equal to other types of
employer-provided health insurance plans, we will be giving the
American people what they desperately need in their health care:
Portability, lower costs, and more choices.
MSAs should not be a partisan issue. In fact, Democrats were the
initial sponsors of MSAs, and MSAs unanimously passed the House Ways
and Means Committee in 1994 during the debate on the Clinton health
care plan. While I understand that many of my colleagues do not want to
weigh down or destroy any health insurance reform with any extraneous
and unnecessary provisions, I believe that MSAs are an essential part
of insurance reforms that will benefit all Americans. It goes without
saying that the health care of the American people should always hold
priority over partisan politics.
Those opposed to MSAs claim that they will lead to adverse risk
selection. But of the over 2,000 MSA plans that employers have in
place, there are no actual examples of adverse risk selection. And the
very sick will save money in most cases because their out of--pocket--
costs will be less under MSAs.
I also support basic health insurance provisions included in the
Democratic substitute that allow for portability, limits on the
exclusion for pre-existing conditions, and increases in the health
insurance tax deductions for the self-employed. These provisions would
allow employees who get laid off to keep their health insurance, and
gives an individual the peace of mind to change jobs or start their own
business based on what is best for their career and family without
worrying about his or her family's health insurance.
In addition to portability, exclusion of pre-existing conditions, tax
deductions, and MSA's, an ideal health insurance reform bill would also
include provisions that allow small employers to pool together to
purchase health insurance. These small businesses should be allowed the
same exemptions from State regulations that big businesses enjoy. But,
I do not believe that medical malpractice provisions that put a price
on pain and suffering as low as $250,000 should be included in any
health insurance bill that we pass today.
In any case, MSA's should be added to health insurance reform because
they will lower costs while still giving individuals the freedom to
make career decisions based on the best interests of the individual.
MSA's do lead to cost containment, as studies have shown. Soaring
health costs are a large reason for an increasing anxiety among cash-
strapped working Americans, and MSA's are proven to lower costs to
employers and employees without sacrificing service and care.
Lastly, MSA's give the consumer unlimited choices. Patients are
allowed to shop around to choose their personal doctors based on their
own unique needs.
Mr. Speaker, we should subdue our partisan politics for 1 day and
include MSA's in health insurance reform so Americans can worry less
about their health care and more about their career and family.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, when I talk to my constituents about health
insurance reform, basically they say, look, the quality of health care
is good in this country, but the problem is a lot of people do not have
health care coverage and the cost of health insurance keeps going on.
So when we talk about the Kennedy-Kassebaum-Roukema bill, it
accomplishes the goal of expanding coverage because a lot more people
that have the problem with preexisting conditions or problems with
portability should be able to get health insurance now who were not
able to get it before. But on the issue of affordability, essentially
by adding these medical savings accounts to this bill, which I think is
a big mistake and will essentially kill the bill, what we are doing is
making health insurance less affordable, going against the goal and
what most people want.
The reason is very simple, and that is why I do not understand some
of the comments on the other side. Essentially the people who are going
to take advantage of MSAs are people who have a lot of money, or people
who are healthy who figure that they can put this money aside and have
it collect, and they only need catastrophic health care coverage.
People who are sicker and need to go to the doctor or the hospital more
often are not going to be able to afford a medical savings account,
because they will have to constantly shell out money to pay for the
health care coverage that they are receiving.
So what is essentially going to happen is that this risk pool is
going to be
[[Page H3036]]
split. The healthy and the wealthy are going to get out of the risk
pool and have the MSAs. The people who are sicker or do not have as
much money, probably who will be the majority, they will see their
premiums go up; and in essence health insurance will be less
affordable.
Vote against the rule and vote against this Republican leadership
bill.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica].
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from the opportunity to
address the question of MSA's and also follow the gentleman from New
Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
I serve as chairman of the Subcommittee on Civil Service of the
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight and actually had the
opportunity to conduct hearings on MSA's. We have heard the other side
of the aisle and the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone] just bash
MSA's.
Let me say what Mayor Schundler testified to, the mayor of Jersey
City, NJ, who came before our subcommittee. He said MSA's were offered
and 60 percent of eligible employees chose MSA's over their previous
plan. What were the results? And this is a city facing financial
disaster and not being able to provide health care for their employees.
The results reduced the out-of-pocket costs to employees and still
saved the city about $275 per employee, but they do not want to deal
with the facts on the other side.
Let us take another area, a small county, Ada County, ID, testified
that under their county's MSA plan, the taxpayer saved money and the
employees saved out-of-pocket costs which were reduced.
Then the private sector was at our hearing. At the hearing the
subcommittee heard of reported cost savings ranging from 17 to 40
percent by more than 1,000 private businesses that have adopted MSA's.
Finally, how about the AFL-CIO? Let us see what one of their
affiliates said. They called MSA's an option offered to their employees
a win win situation.
So if we went to provide health care cost effectively, these are the
facts, this is the result, and this is how we can do it. It just
happens to be a new idea whose time has arrived.
{time} 1730
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Virginia [Mr. Moran].
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, there is a lot that could and should be said
about MSA's. I am going to save that for another time. Right now I
would like to spend maybe a minute and a half and talk about the
subject of hypocrisy.
Tomorrow the Committee on Rules is going to bring up a rule for a
constitutional amendment that would require a two-thirds vote to raise
income taxes, and then, the very next legislative day, April 15, when
we get back from vacation, we are going to bring that bill up on the
floor to require a two-thirds vote.
Now on the first day of this legislative term back in January 1995,
we passed a law that was supposed to govern all of our actions that
said we require a three-fifths vote to raise taxes, and do you know,
every single time it has applied, it has been waived, and here is the
third time that the Committee on Rules again waives the three-fifths
requirement.
We had to waive it, with that Contract With America, Tax Relief Act
that was a big issue. Remember I raised a point of order. It turns out
that, sure enough, it did include a tax increase. So the
Parliamentarian recognized we had to waive it.
The second time we had the budget resolution, we had the Committee on
Rules had to waive it, and now the third time we have got tax increases
here. We are going to waive the rule because it is inconvenient to let
it apply to this bill, but is it not unbelievable that tomorrow the
Committee on Rules--just for pure expedience, political gain--is going
to bring up this rule saying that you need a two-thirds vote, putting
it in the Constitution and then expecting us to vote on it April 15.
Unbelievable. I think some of the members of the Committee on Rules
ought to be embarrassed about this one.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California [Mr. Royce].
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and this
legislation because this legislation gives individuals greater control
over their own health care through the introduction of medical savings
accounts.
These medical savings accounts put individuals in charge of their own
health care. It gives them greater freedom and more choices, and it
will drive down costs. At the same time, they help resolve the
portability issue.
One problem with the current health insurance system in this country
is that coverage for working people is usually tied to the job rather
than the individual. Medical savings accounts, which would be owned by
the individual for life, move with the individual. It is the ultimate
in portability.
Medical savings accounts are becoming increasingly common in the
public sector. This popularity in the private sector is even more
significant considering the fact that they are handicapped by tax laws
which give deductions to employers who pay their workers' insurance
premiums but not to the employers who are paying into the medical
savings accounts. This inequitable tax treatment penalizes individuals
who want to select their own health providers and plans as well as
individuals without health plans at work.
The legislation before us today removes this handicap and allows
individuals and employers to make tax-deductible contributions to the
accounts when employees are covered by a high deductible health
insurance policy.
Further, in allowing for a tax-free buildup of these accounts, this
bill makes the choice of medical savings accounts available to many
more Americans, and everyone owning an MSA would have an incentive to
spend their money wisely. That is a marked contrast to the use-it-or-
lose-it approach fostered by third-payer plans. The savings would be
theirs, and so would the choice.
The competition would also put pressure on providers to reduce costs
so everyone would benefit, and while MSA options may not solve every
problem, it would certainly help consumers giving them more choices,
more control, lifetime security, and lower costs.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], the former chairman of the Committee on
Commerce.
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this closed rule.
I want to acknowledge the gracious reception I received at the
Committee on Rules hearing yesterday from Chairman Solomon and the
other members of the Rules Committee. And I appreciate that the rule
makes in order a substitute, which I will offer together with my
colleagues (Mr. Spratt and Mr. Bentsen), that will enable us to pare
this bill down to two simple and uncontroversial propositions: a clean
Kassebaum-Roukema bill, and tax deductibility of health insurance for
the self-employed.
But what we asked for was an open rule, and we have not gotten one.
Thus, while the Republican leadership has loaded this bill down with a
fine assortment of goodies for their friends in the health insurance
industry, the medical profession, the HMO's, and other special
pleaders, Democrats will not have a fair opportunity out here on the
floor to make changes in those special-interest provisions.
For example, I had hoped to offer an amendment to strike a provision
in the Republican bill that contains a sneak attack on the pocketbooks
of America's seniors. This sneaky provision would put millions of our
senior citizens at the mercy of health insurance scam artists who want
to sell policy after policy to the same frightened and infirm people,
whether they need it or not. The Republican bill would repeal existing
protections in the Medicare law that regulate the sale of duplicative
policies that had seniors paying premiums over and over again for
coverage they didn't need.
But my amendment was not made in order. It seems that my Republican
colleagues care more about helping their friends in the health
insurance business than about protecting seniors from rip-offs. Oppose
this rule.
[[Page H3037]]
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Virginia [Mr. Scott].
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, the original bill had broad bipartisan
support that guaranteed that those who lose their job for any reason
can still get health insurance coverage.
This bill is loaded up with so many special interest provisions that
for the consumer, the poor and the sick, it does more harm than good.
The medical savings accounts will allow a few health people to take
money out of the Medicare Program, leaving behind a group that are, on
average, sicker and, therefore, will have higher health care costs.
The malpractice changes are all slanted to help the wrongdoer at the
expense of the victim. They only preempt State laws to the extent that
they hurt the victim. Incredibly, the bill provides if the victim is
hurt worse under State law, then the State law prevails.
Mr. Speaker, we should reject the special-interest wrongdoer
protections and instead pass the original bipartisan consumer
protection health care bill.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Missouri [Mr. Volkmer].
(Mr. VOLKMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the Members are watching and
listening to this debate on the rule for the so-called Health Coverage
Availability and Affordability Act.
I hope Members will really take a look at what is happened here. This
is blatant politics and blatant hypocrisy. The bill's title speaks of
laudatory goals, while the provisions of the bill for medical savings
accounts will ultimately have adverse effects on health insurance
policies of all persons in this country who are not wealthy and cannot
afford a medical savings account. The Golden Rule Insurance Co. is
being repaid by the Gingrich majority for Golden Rules contribution to
GOPAC and the Republican's campaign coffers. It's more than 30 pieces
of silver. It is millions from taxpayers' pockets to put into the
pockets of Golden Rule. Blatant politics and blatant hypocrisy.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon].
(Mr. WELDON of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about what
the American people want and the facts about the bill before us. They
want medical insurance that is available, affordable, and portable.
Most Americans without health insurance work for small business. Most
small businesses also want to provide health insurance to their
employees but find it too expensive to do so. Large corporations, on
the other hand, are able to buy health insurance in bulk for their
thousands of employees at more affordable rates.
Current law does not give small businesses the same opportunities to
join together with other small businesses and purchase insurance in
bulk. The end result is that insurance is not affordable.
Our bill makes health insurance affordable and available for small
businesses by allowing them to pool together and buy insurance for
their employees in bulk at affordable rates. This change will make
medical insurance available and affordable for tens of millions of
Americans who work for small businesses and have no insurance today.
This is supported by small business associations across the board and
deserves the full support of Congress.
We also make insurance more portable. We make it easier for employees
to take their health insurance with them when they change jobs. For too
long employees have resisted changing jobs and advancing in their
careers because of fear of losing their health insurance. By making
health insurance more portable, we open new job opportunities for
millions of Americans. This is a good bill. Let us pass the bill. Let
us pass the rule. If there is anything blatant about this, it is
blatant democracy at work.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Scarborough].
Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, I have been really intrigued by this
debate. We hear actually some of the architects of the Clinton health
care plan, that would socialize the health care system and one-seventh
of our economy, lecturing us on how we need to now fix health care in
America. Very intriguing.
The fact of the matter is that what it shows is we have two different
views of America; those Americans who believe in empowering Americans,
and those Americans who believe that we must socialize government,
socialize health care, and do everything we can to take the decision
out of the hands of the consumers and the doctors.
Who could not like medical savings accounts? Who could not? They take
the middle man out. They give power to patients and doctors, family
doctors, to sit down and decide what the best course of treatment is to
cure people who are ill that come to their office without having to
call an insurance company first and decide how to use the money.
Somebody said it helps special interests and actually drives up
costs. Let me tell my colleagues, that is a novel approach. I wonder
what economics class has ever been taught that shows that free
enterprise and empowering consumers drives up the cost of medical care.
It makes absolutely no sense.
So let us look at the two different views of America. With Democrats
in control, they wanted to socialize; with the Republicans in control,
we want to privatize. We want to drive down cost, and we want to
empower doctors and patients to sit down together and decide what is
best for their medical future. That makes sense to me.
I support the rule and the bill.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns].
(Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding this time
to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule. The legislation we will
vote on today addressed the most fundamental and important issues that
currently prevent a large majority of the uninsured from accessing the
health care system.
What do Americans want from Health Care Reform?
They want health care reform that ensures portability, controls
costs, and expands access.
If we are to have true health care reform, we must include
malpractice reforms, medical savings accounts, increases in tax
deduction for health insurance for self-employed individuals,
provisions to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse, and administrative
reforms. Without providing such necessary relief, we will not succeed
in bringing down the costs associated with delivering health care.
Passage of this bill will benefit all Americans, especially the 39
million who lack any type of health coverage. These individuals must
live in constant fear of becoming sick and not having the necessary
insurance to meet their medical needs.
Lastly, I am particularly pleased that my suggestion to include
``genetic information'' in the definition of health status was agreed
to and made part of the final package. I believe by doing so we have
enhanced and made it an even better piece of legislation. I will have
more to say about this in the next period of debate.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia
[Mr. Kingston].
(Mr. KINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I find it amazing that last year the group
that wanted to nationalize health care has taken exception with the
Republican Party because we want to go beyond the portability issue.
What is it that we want to do that we disagree? Medical savings
accounts, giving consumers choices rather than command-and-control
Washington Bureaucrats. We want to stop waste, fraud, and abuse.
I realize the Democratic Party is partial to waste, and I can
understand that. We want to stop medical malpractice, and we have tort
reform. The Hill newspaper, though, explains the Democrats' position on
that with $2.2 million in campaign contributions last year going to
political candidates, 94 percent Democrats.
I will put this in the Record, Mr. Speaker.
[[Page H3038]]
That is why they are against this. It is a tort reform issue. It is a
trial lawyers' issue. They are also against small businesses. I like
the idea of pet shops, clothes stores, bicycle shops, combining
together to get economies of scale that large corporations can. My
small businesses are in favor of that, as are all small businesses all
over America. Then again, the Democratic Party has never been
partial to small businesses. What is it on long-term health care? We
want long-term health care.
Mr. Speaker, I support the rule and strongly urge a ``yes'' vote on
the bill.
The article referred to follows:
Trial attorneys Seek More Hill Clout
(By Craig Karmin)
In a move that would increase the political power of trial
lawyers and benefit Democratic congressional candidates, the
Association of Trial Lawyers of America is planning a new
program to encourage its members to contribute to ATLA-
endorsed candidates.
These individual contributions would supplement ATLA's
political action committee, which was the sixth largest
contributor during the 1994 elections. It donated more than
$2.2 million to congressional campaigns, with Democrats
receiving 94 percent of the funds. In 1995, despite
Republican majorities in the House and Senate, the
association gave 79 percent of its $700,000 in campaign
contributions to Democrats.
The political and financial clout of the trial lawyers has
been credited with President Clinton's threat to veto the
product liability law, and the group has come under fire from
congressional Republicans.
According to a letter the association sent to the Federal
Election Commission, ATLA would ``obtain advance commitments
from its members to contribute a specified amount'' to
certain candidates. It would further ``recommend the size of
contributions that members should send to particular
candidates'' and ``suggest when members should mail their
contributions.''
The FEC met last week on the subject and is expected to
approve ATLA's request to engage in these activities in the
near future. But these contributions could be prohibited
under bipartisan campaign finance reform bills pending in
both the House and Senate. ATLA contends that these
contributions are constitutionally protected by the First
Amendment.
The association's plan to strongly urge its 60,000 members
to contribute to congressional campaigns would expand the
power and influence of an already formidable special interest
on Capitol Hill and in the White House.
Josh Goldstein of the Center for Responsive Politics said
he thought the ATLA plan would provide ``a way for trial
lawyers to distinguish themselves from other lawyers when
giving to campaigns,'' and therefore ``give them more bang
for their buck on Capitol Hill.''
ATLA's program encouraged Democrats about their chances in
the fall elections. ``I think it could impact a number of
races because it will probably benefit Democrats more than
Republicans,'' said Don Sweizer, a Democratic consultant and
former finance director at the Democratic National Committee.
``It's good news for our team.''
Republicans seemed to agree. ``In general, I think
Republicans should be concerned,'' said Dawn Sciarrino, a
vice president at Brockmeyer, Allen and Associates, a
Republican consulting firm. ``This helps them funnel a great
deal of money to the candidates of their choice.''
Pam Liapakis, president of ATLA, said that she was inspired
by a similar program at EMILY's List, an association whose
contributors give money to Democratic pro-choice women
candidates. Liapakis expects to have the program ``up and
running'' well before the November elections.
But if campaign reformers have their way, this could be the
only election in which ATLA, EMILY's List, or any other
organization can engage in what is sometimes referred to as
``bundling'' contributions. Bipartisan campaign finance
reform bills submitted in the House and Senate would ban this
kind of activity.
Liapakis, however, said she believed ATLA's program was
within the law. ``There is a right under the First Amendment
to communicate and to participate in elections,'' she said.
{time} 1745
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Washington [Mr. McDermott].
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, as a physician, I am particularly
concerned with the section of this bill that many may not have had a
chance to study. Buried within the 300-plus pages of this bill is a 29-
page section called ``Administrative simplification.''
Now, ``administrative simplification'' has a nice right to it, but
let me tell you why everyone concerned with the future of health care
in this country should oppose the inclusion of this section in any
health care reform bill.
First of all, section 1173 on page 222 forces a physician to reveal
confidential patient information for billing purposes. The bill says
``The Secretary shall adopt standards for transactions and data
elements for such transactions to enable health information to be
exchange electronically.'' This bill sets up electronic elearinghouses
for all the health care administration information in this country.
Now, among the transactions that doctors will be forced to make, on
page 223, it says ``Claims or equivalent encounter information.'' This
will require doctors to submit not just general information, but
personal, private information that patients need to disclose to their
doctors.
Next, this bill fails to adequately protect the privacy of patient
health information, which is vital if you are going to have good
quality care in this country. Instead of actual privacy protections,
the administrative simplification section provided vague promises to
develop privacy standards in the future.
The bottom of page 226, part E of section 1173, it says ``Privacy
standards for health information.'' It reads, ``The Secretary shall
adopt standards with respect to the privacy of individually
identifiable health information.''
Now, we do not know what those protections are going to look like,
yet we are going to set in place a collection mechanism from all the
patients in this country in this bill. We have overridden all States,
all insurance commissioners, everybody else in one provision, stuck in
a 300-page bill that most people on this floor have never read.
When I asked in the Committee on Ways and Means about this section,
they said it has been cleared with all the groups. So I called some of
the groups, and it has not been cleared with the groups. They
understand that this is an invasion of privacy.
I cannot understand how Republicans can be putting a bill out here
that invades the public privacy for people who say they want privacy,
and they want the Government out of their lives, to suddenly say to the
insurance industry in a 29-page section buried in this bill, you can
gather all the information you want and have a electronic transfer, so
any insurance company can type in a name and here it will come printed
out somewhere in a computer somewhere.
That is what is being set up in this bill, and it is for the
insurance industry, and everybody ought to understand it. You are going
to come to rue the day that you pass this bill without talking about
it.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kolbe). The gentleman from Massachusetts
is recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous
question. If the previous question is defeated, I shall offer an
amendment to the rule which will make in order the amendment by the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson], the gentleman from Illinois
[Mr. Poshard], the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts], the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. Stenholm], the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr.
Gutknecht], and other members of the Rural Health Coalition.
Yesterday several of these members appeared before the Committee on
Rules and spoke eloquently on the importance of a 24-hour emergency
care antitrust relief to small rural hospitals and expanded
telemedicine services in rural areas. It is important when we consider
health care reform to ensure that Americans who live in small towns and
rural communities are able to enjoy the same access to health care as
those in urban areas.
Mr. Speaker, the text of my proposed amendment is as follows:
Previous Question Amendment Text (H.R. 3103-H. Res. 392)
On page 3, line 11 of House Resolution 392, immediately
after ``opponent;'' strike ``and 93)'' and insert the
following:
``(3) the amendment printed in Section 2 of the resolution
by Representatives Gunderson, Poshard, Roberts and Gutknecht
or their designee, which shall be in order without
intervention of any point of order (except those arising
under section 425(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974)
or demand for division of the question, shall be considered
as read, and shall be separately debatable for 30 minutes
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and opponent;
and (4)''.
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
section:
``Sec. 2. At the end of the bill, add the following new
title (and conform the table of contents accordingly):
[[Page H3039]]
TITLE V--PROMOTING ACCESS AND AVAILABILITY OF HEALTH COVERAGE IN RURAL
AREAS
Subtitle A--Medicare Program
SEC. 501. MEDICARE RURAL HOSPITAL FLEXIBILITY PROGRAM.
(a) Medicare Rural Hospital Flexibility Program.--Section
1820 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395i-4) is
amended to read as follows:
``medicare rural hospital flexibility program
``Sec. 1820. (a) Establishment.--Any State that submits an
application in accordance with subsection (b) may establish a
medicare rural hospital flexibility program described in
subsection (c).
``(b) Application.--A State may establish a medicare rural
hospital flexibility program described in subsection (c) if
the State submits to the Secretary at such time and in such
form as the Secretary may require an application containing--
``(1) assurances that the State--
``(A) has developed, or is in the process of developing, a
State rural health care plan that--
``(i) provides for the creation of one or more rural health
networks (as defined in subsection (d)) in the State,
``(ii) promotes regionalization of rural health services in
the State, and
``(iii) improves access to hospital and other health
services for rural residents of the State;
``(B) has developed the rural health care plan described in
subparagraph (A) in consultation with the hospital
association of the State, rural hospitals located in the
State, and the State Office of Rural Health (or, in the case
of a State in the process of developing such plan, that
assures the Secretary that the State will consult with its
State hospital association, rural hospitals located in the
State, and the State Office of Rural Health in developing
such plan);
``(2) assurances that the State has designated (consistent
with the rural health care plan described in paragraph
(1)(A)), or is in the process of so designating, rural
nonprofit or public hospitals or facilities located in the
State as critical access hospitals; and
``(3) such other information and assurances as the
Secretary may require.
``(c) Medicare Rural Hospital Flexibility Program
Described.--
``(1) In general.--A State that has submitted an
application in accordance with subsection (b), may establish
a medicare rural hospital flexibility program that provides
that--
``(A) the State shall develop at least one rural health
network (as defined in subsection (d)) in the State; and
``(B) at least one facility in the State shall be
designated as a critical access hospital in accordance with
paragraph (2).
``(2) State designation of facilities.--
``(A) In general.--A State may designate one or more
facilities as a critical access hospital in accordance with
subparagraph (B).
``(B) Criteria for designation as critical access
hospital.--A State may designate a facility as a critical
access hospital if the facility--
``(i) is located in a county (or equivalent unit of local
government) in a rural area (as defined in section
1886(d)(2)(D)) that--
``(I) is located more than a 35-mile drive from a hospital,
or another facility described in this subsection, or
``(II) is certified by the State as being a necessary
provider of health care services to residents in the area;
``(ii) makes available 24-hour emergency care services that
a State determines are necessary for ensuring access to
emergency care services in each area served by a critical
access hospital;
``(iii) provides not more than 6 acute care inpatient beds
(meeting such standards as the Secretary may establish) for
providing inpatient care for a period not to exceed 72 hours
(unless a longer period is required because transfer to a
hospital is precluded because of inclement weather or other
emergency conditions), except that a peer review organization
or equivalent entity may, on request, waive the 72-hour
restriction on a case-by-case basis;
``(iv) meets such staffing requirements as would apply
under section 1861(e) to a hospital located in a rural area,
except that--
``(I) the facility need not meet hospital standards
relating to the number of hours during a day, or days during
a week, in which the facility must be open and fully staffed,
except insofar as the facility is required to make available
emergency care services as determined under clause (ii) and
must have nursing services available on a 24-hour basis, but
need not otherwise staff the facility except when an
inpatient is present,
``(II) the facility may provide any services otherwise
required to be provided by a full-time, on-site dietitian,
pharmacist, laboratory technician, medical technologist, and
radiological technologist on a part-time, off-site basis
under arrangements as defined in section 1861(w)(1), and
``(III) the inpatient care described in clause (iii) may be
provided by a physician's assistant, nurse practitioner, or
clinical nurse specialist subject to the oversight of a
physician who need not be present in the facility; and
``(v) meets the requirements of subparagraph (I) of
paragraph (2) of section 1861(aa).
``(d) Rural Health Network Defined.--
``(1) In general.--For purposes of this section, the term
`rural health network' means, with respect to a State, an
organization consisting of--
``(A) at least 1 facility that the State has designated or
plans to designate as a critical access hospital, and
``(B) at least 1 hospital that furnishes acute care
services.
``(2) Agreements.--
``(A) In general.--Each critical access hospital that is a
member of a rural health network shall have an agreement with
respect to each item described in subparagraph (B) with at
least 1 hospital that is a member of the network.
``(B) Items described.--The items described in this
subparagraph are the following:
``(i) Patient referral and transfer.
``(ii) The development and use of communications systems
including (where feasible)--
``(I) telemetry systems, and
``(II) systems for electronic sharing of patient data.
``(iii) The provision of emergency and non-emergency
transportation among the facility and the hospital.
``(C) Credentialing and quality assurance.--Each critical
access hospital that is a member of a rural health network
shall have an agreement with respect to credentialing and
quality assurance with at least 1--
``(i) hospital that is a member of the network;
``(ii) peer review organization or equivalent entity; or
``(iii) other appropriate and qualified entity identified
in the State rural health care plan.
``(e) Certification by the Secretary.--The Secretary shall
certify a facility as a critical access hospital if the
facility--
``(1) is located in a State that has established a medicare
rural hospital flexibility program in accordance with
subsection (c);
``(2) is designated as a critical access hospital by the
State in which it is located; and
``(3) meets such other criteria as the Secretary may
require.
``(f) Permitting Maintenance of Swing Beds.--Nothing in
this section shall be construed to prohibit a State from
designating or the Secretary from certifying a facility as a
critical access hospital solely because, at the time the
facility applies to the State for designation as a critical
access hospital, there is in effect an agreement between the
facility and the Secretary under section 1883 under which the
facility's inpatient hospital facilities are used for the
furnishing of extended care services, except that the number
of beds used for the furnishing of such services may not
exceed 12 beds (minus the number of inpatient beds used for
providing inpatient care in the facility pursuant to
subsection (c)(2)(B)(iii)). For purposes of the previous
sentence, the number of beds of the facility used for the
furnishing of extended care services shall not include any
beds of a unit of the facility that is licensed as a
distinct-part skilled nursing facility at the time the
facility applies to the State for designation as a critical
access hospital.
``(g) Waiver of Conflicting Part A Provisions.--The
Secretary is authorized to waive such provisions of this part
and part C as are necessary to conduct the program
established under this section.''.
(b) Part A Amendments Relating to Rural Primary Care
Hospitals and Critical Access Hospitals.--
(1) Definitions.--Section 1861(mm) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
1395x(mm)) is amended to read as follows:
``Critical Access Hospital; Critical Access Hospital Services
``(mm)(1) The term `critical access hospital' means a
facility certified by the Secretary as a critical access
hospital under section 1820(e).
``(2) The term `inpatient critical access hospital
services' means items and services, furnished to an inpatient
of a critical access hospital by such facility, that would be
inpatient hospital services if furnished to an inpatient of a
hospital by a hospital.''.
(2) Coverage and payment.--(A) Section 1812(a)(1) of such
Act (42 U.S.C. 1395d(a)(1)) is amended by striking ``or
inpatient rural primary care hospital services'' and
inserting ``or inpatient critical access hospital services''.
(B) Sections 1813(a) and section 1813(b)(3)(A) of such Act
(42 U.S.C. 1395e(a), 1395e(b)(3)(A)) are each amended by
striking ``inpatient rural primary care hospital services''
each place it appears, and inserting ``inpatient critical
access hospital services''.
(C) Section 1813(b)(3)(B) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
1395e(b)(3)(B)) is amended by striking ``inpatient rural
primary care hospital services'' and inserting ``inpatient
critical access hospital services''.
(D) Section 1814 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395f) is amended--
(i) in subsection (a)(8) by striking ``rural primary care
hospital'' each place it appears and inserting ``critical
access hospital''; and
(ii) in subsection (b), by striking ``other than a rural
primary care hospital providing inpatient rural primary care
hospital services,'' and inserting ``other than a critical
access hospital providing inpatient critical access hospital
services,''; and
(iii) by amending subsection (l) to read as follows:
``(l) Payment for Inpatient Critical Access Hospital
Services.--The amount of payment under this part for
inpatient critical access hospital services is the reasonable
[[Page H3040]]
costs of the critical access hospital in providing such
services.''.
(3) Treatment of critical access hospitals as providers of
services.--(A) Section 1861(u) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
1395x(u)) is amended by striking ``rural primary care
hospital'' and inserting ``critical access hospital''.
(B) The first sentence of section 1864(a) (42 U.S.C.
1395aa(a)) is amended by striking ``a rural primary care
hospital'' and inserting ``a critical access hospital''.
(4) Conforming amendments.--(A) Section 1128A(b)(1) of such
Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a-7a(b)(1)) is amended by striking ``rural
primary care hospital'' each place it appears and inserting
``critical access hospital''.
(B) Section 1128B(c) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a-7b(c)) is
amended by striking ``rural primary care hospital'' and
inserting ``critical access hospital''.
(C) Section 1134 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1320b-4) is amended
by striking ``rural primary care hospitals'' each place it
appears and inserting ``critical access hospitals''.
(D) Section 1138(a)(1) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1320b-
8(a)(1)) is amended--
(i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking
``rural primary care hospital'' and inserting ``critical
access hospital''; and
(ii) in the matter preceding clause (i) of subparagraph
(A), by striking ``rural primary care hospital'' and
inserting ``critical access hospital''.
(E) Section 1816(c)(2)(C) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
1395h(c)(2)(C)) is amended by striking ``rural primary care
hospital'' and inserting ``critical access hospital''.
(F) Section 1833 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395l) is amended--
(i) in subsection (h)(5)(A)(iii), by striking ``rural
primary care hospital'' and inserting ``critical access
hospital'';
(ii) in subsection (i)(1)(A), by striking ``rural primary
care hospital'' and inserting ``critical access hospital'';
(iii) in subsection (i)(3)(A), by striking ``rural primary
care hospital services'' and inserting ``critical access
hospital services'';
(iv) in subsection (l)(5)(A), by striking ``rural primary
care hospital'' each place it appears and inserting
``critical access hospital''; and
(v) in subsection (l)(5)(B), by striking ``rural primary
care hospital'' each place it appears and inserting
``critical access hospital''.
(G) Section 1835(c) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395n(c)) is
amended by striking ``rural primary care hospital'' each
place it appears and inserting ``critical access hospital''.
(H) Section 1842(b)(6)(A)(ii) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
1395u(b)(6)(A)(ii)) is amended by striking ``rural primary
care hospital'' and inserting ``critical access hospital''.
(I) Section 1861 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x) is amended--
(i) in subsection (a)--
(I) in paragraph (1), by striking ``inpatient rural primary
care hospital services'' and inserting ``inpatient critical
access hospital services''; and
(II) in paragraph (2), by striking ``rural primary care
hospital'' and inserting ``critical access hospital'';
(ii) in the last sentence of subsection (e), by striking
``rural primary care hospital'' and inserting ``critical
access hospital'';
(iii) in subsection (v)(1)(S)(ii)(III), by striking ``rural
primary care hospital'' and inserting ``critical access
hospital'';
(iv) in subsection (w)(1), by striking ``rural primary care
hospital'' and inserting ``critical access hospital''; and
(v) in subsection (w)(2), by striking ``rural primary care
hospital'' each place it appears and inserting ``critical
access hospital''.
(J) Section 1862(a)(14) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
1395y(a)(14)) is amended by striking ``rural primary care
hospital'' each place it appears and inserting ``critical
access hospital''.
(K) Section 1866(a)(1) of such Act (42 U.S.C 1395cc(a)(1))
is amended--
(i) in subparagraph (F)(ii), by striking ``rural primary
care hospitals'' and inserting ``critical access hospitals'';
(ii) in subparagraph (H), in the matter preceding clause
(i), by striking ``rural primary care hospitals'' and ``rural
primary care hospital services'' and inserting ``critical
access hospitals'' and ``critical access hospital services'',
respectively;
(iii) in subparagraph (I), in the matter preceding clause
(i), by striking ``rural primary care hospital'' and
inserting ``critical access hospital''; and
(iv) in subparagraph (N)--
(I) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking ``rural
primary care hospitals'' and inserting ``critical access
hospitals'', and
(II) in clause (i), by striking ``rural primary care
hospital'' and inserting ``critical access hospital''.
(L) Section 1866(a)(3) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395cc(a)(3))
is amended--
(i) by striking ``rural primary care hospital'' each place
it appears in subparagraphs (A) and (B) and inserting
``critical access hospital''; and
(ii) in subparagraph (C)(ii)(II), by striking ``rural
primary care hospitals'' each place it appears and inserting
``critical access hospitals''.
(M) Section 1867(e)(5) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395dd(e)(5))
is amended by striking ``rural primary care hospital'' and
inserting ``critical access hospital''.
(c) Payment Continued to Designated EACHs.--Section
1886(d)(5)(D) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(5)(D)) is
amended--
(1) in clause (iii)(III), by inserting ``as in effect on
September 30, 1995'' before the period at the end; and
(2) in clause (v)--
(A) by inserting ``as in effect on September 30, 1995''
after ``1820 (i)(1)''; and
(B) by striking ``1820(g)'' and inserting ``1820(e)''.
(d) Part B Amendments Relating to Critical Access
Hospitals.--
(1) Coverage.--(A) Section 1861(mm) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
1395x(mm)) as amended by subsection (d)(1), is amended by
adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) The term `outpatient critical access hospital
services' means medical and other health services furnished
by a critical access hospital on an outpatient basis.''.
(B) Section 1832(a)(2)(H) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
1395k(a)(2)(H)) is amended by striking ``rural primary care
hospital services'' and inserting ``critical access hospital
services''.
(2) Payment.--(A) Section 1833(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
1395l(a)) is amended in paragraph (6), by striking
``outpatient rural primary care hospital services'' and
inserting ``outpatient critical access hospital services''.
(B) Section 1834(g) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395m(g)) is
amended to read as follows:
``(g) Payment for Outpatient Critical Access Hospital
Services.--The amount of payment under this part for
outpatient critical access hospital services is the
reasonable costs of the critical access hospital in providing
such services.''.
(e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to services furnished on or after October 1,
1996.
SEC. 502. ESTABLISHMENT OF RURAL EMERGENCY ACCESS CARE
HOSPITALS.
(a) In General.--Section 1861 of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1395x) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``Rural Emergency Access Care Hospital; Rural Emergency Access Care
Hospital Services
``(oo)(1) The term `rural emergency access care hospital'
means, for a fiscal year, a facility with respect to which
the Secretary finds the following:
``(A) The facility is located in a rural area (as defined
in section 1886(d)(2)(D)).
``(B) The facility was a hospital under this title at any
time during the 5-year period that ends on the date of the
enactment of this subsection.
``(C) The facility is in danger of closing due to low
inpatient utilization rates and operating losses, and the
closure of the facility would limit the access to emergency
services of individuals residing in the facility's service
area.
``(D) The facility has entered into (or plans to enter
into) an agreement with a hospital with a participation
agreement in effect under section 1866(a), and under such
agreement the hospital shall accept patients transferred to
the hospital from the facility and receive data from and
transmit data to the facility.
``(E) There is a practitioner who is qualified to provide
advanced cardiac life support services (as determined by the
State in which the facility is located) on-site at the
facility on a 24-hour basis.
``(F) A physician is available on-call to provide emergency
medical services on a 24-hour basis.
``(G) The facility meets such staffing requirements as
would apply under section 1861(e) to a hospital located in a
rural area, except that--
``(i) the facility need not meet hospital standards
relating to the number of hours during a day, or days during
a week, in which the facility must be open, except insofar as
the facility is required to provide emergency care on a 24-
hour basis under subparagraphs (E) and (F); and
``(ii) the facility may provide any services otherwise
required to be provided by a full-time, on-site dietitian,
pharmacist, laboratory technician, medical technologist, or
radiological technologist on a part-time, off-site basis.
``(H) The facility meets the requirements applicable to
clinics and facilities under subparagraphs (C) through (J) of
paragraph (2) of section 1861(aa) and of clauses (ii) and
(iv) of the second sentence of such paragraph (or, in the
case of the requirements of subparagraph (E), (F), or (J) of
such paragraph, would meet the requirements if any reference
in such subparagraph to a `nurse practitioner' or to `nurse
practitioners' were deemed to be a reference to a `nurse
practitioner or nurse' or to `nurse practitioners or
nurses'); except that in determining whether a facility meets
the requirements of this subparagraph, subparagraphs (E) and
(F) of that paragraph shall be applied as if any reference to
a `physician' is a reference to a physician as defined in
section 1861(r)(1).
``(2) The term `rural emergency access care hospital
services' means the following services provided by a rural
emergency access care hospital and furnished to an individual
over a continuous period not to exceed 24 hours (except that
such services may be furnished over a longer period in the
case of an individual who is unable to leave the hospital
because of inclement weather):
``(A) An appropriate medical screening examination (as
described in section 1867(a)).
``(B) Necessary stabilizing examination and treatment
services for an emergency medical condition and labor (as
described in section 1867(b)).''.
(b) Requiring Rural Emergency Access Care Hospitals To Meet
Hospital Anti-
[[Page H3041]]
Dumping Requirements.--Section 1867(e)(5) of such Act (42
U.S.C. 1395dd(e)(5)) is amended by striking ``1861(mm)(1))''
and inserting ``1861(mm)(1)) and a rural emergency access
care hospital (as defined in section 1861(oo)(1))''.
(c) Coverage and Payment for Services.--
(1) Coverage.--Section 1832(a)(2) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
1395k(a)(2)) is amended--
(A) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (I);
(B) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (J)
and inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(K) rural emergency access care hospital services (as
defined in section 1861(oo)(2)).''.
(2) Payment based on payment for outpatient critical access
hospital services.--
(A) In general.--Section 1833(a)(6) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
1395l(a)(6)), as amended by section 501(f)(2), is amended by
striking ``services,'' and inserting ``services and rural
emergency access care hospital services,''.
(B) Payment methodology described.--Section 1834(g) of such
Act (42 U.S.C. 1395m(g)), as amended by section 501(f)(2)(B),
is amended--
(i) in the heading, by striking ``Services'' and inserting
``Services and Rural Emergency Access Care Hospital
Services''; and
(ii) by adding at the end the following new sentence: ``The
amount of payment for rural emergency access care hospital
services provided during a year shall be determined using the
applicable method provided under this subsection for
determining payment for outpatient rural primary care
hospital services during the year.''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to fiscal years beginning on or after October 1,
1996.
SEC. 503. CLASSIFICATION OF RURAL REFERRAL CENTERS.
(a) Prohibiting Denial of Request for Reclassification on
Basis of Comparability of Wages.--
(1) In general.--Section 1886(d)(10)(D) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(10)(D)) is amended--
(A) by redesignating clause (iii) as clause (iv); and
(B) by inserting after clause (ii) the following new
clause:
``(iii) Under the guidelines published by the Secretary
under clause (i), in the case of a hospital which is
classified by the Secretary as a rural referral center under
paragraph (5)(C), the Board may not reject the application of
the hospital under this paragraph on the basis of any
comparison between the average hourly wage of the hospital
and the average hourly wage of hospitals in the area in which
it is located.''.
(2) Effective date.--Notwithstanding section
1886(d)(10)(C)(ii) of the Social Security Act, a hospital may
submit an application to the Medicare Geographic
Classification Review Board during the 30-day period
beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act requesting
a change in its classification for purposes of determining
the area wage index applicable to the hospital under section
1886(d)(3)(D) of such Act for fiscal year 1997, if the
hospital would be eligible for such a change in its
classification under the standards described in section
1886(d)(10)(D) of such Act (as amended by paragraph (1)) but
for its failure to meet the deadline for applications under
section 1886(d)(10)(C)(ii) of such Act.
(b) Continuing Treatment of Previously Designated
Centers.--Any hospital classified as a rural referral center
by the Secretary of Health and Human Services under section
1886(d)(5)(C) of the Social Security Act for fiscal year 1994
shall be classified as such a rural referral center for
fiscal year 1997 and each subsequent fiscal year.
Subtitle B--Small Rural Hospital Antitrust Fairness
SEC. 511. ANTITRUST EXEMPTION.
The antitrust laws shall not apply with respect to--
(1) the merger of, or the attempt to merge, 2 or more
hospitals,
(2) a contract entered into solely by 2 or more hospitals
to allocate hospital services, or
(3) the attempt by only 2 or more hospitals to enter into a
contract to allocate hospital services,
if each of such hospitals satisfies all of the requirements
of section 512 at the time such hospitals engage in the
conduct described in paragraph (1), (2), or (3), as the case
may be.
SEC. 512. REQUIREMENTS.
The requirements referred to in section 511 are as follows:
(1) The hospital is located outside of a city, or in a city
that has less than 150,000 inhabitants, as determined in
accordance with the most recent data available from the
Bureau of the Census.
(2) In the most recently concluded calendar year, the
hospital received more than 40 percent of its gross revenue
from payments made under Federal programs.
(3) There is in effect with respect to the hospital a
certificate issued by the Health Care Financing
Administration specifying that such Administration has
determined that Federal expenditures would be reduced,
consumer costs would not increase, and access to health care
services would not be reduced, if the hospital and the other
hospitals that requested such certificate merge, or allocate
the hospital services specified in such request, as the case
may be.
SEC. 513. DEFINITION.
For purposes of this title, the term ``antitrust laws'' has
the meaning given such term in subsection (a) of the first
section of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 12), except that such
term includes section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act
(15 U.S.C. 45) to the extent that such section 5 applies with
respect to unfair methods of competition.
Subtitle C--Miscellaneous Provisions
SEC. 521. NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CORPS LOAN REPAYMENTS
EXCLUDED FROM GROSS INCOME.
(a) In General.--Part III of subchapter B of chapter 1 of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to items
specifically excluded from gross income) is amended by
redesignating section 137 as section 138 and by inserting
after section 136 the following new section:
``SEC. 137. NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CORPS LOAN REPAYMENTS.
``(a) General Rule.--Gross income shall not include any
qualified loan repayment.
``(b) Qualified Loan Repayment.--For purposes of this
section, the term `qualified loan repayment' means any
payment made on behalf of the taxpayer by the National Health
Service Corps Loan Repayment Program under section 338B(g) of
the Public Health Service Act.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Paragraph (3) of section 338B(g)
of the Public Health Service Act is amended by striking
``Federal, State, or local'' and inserting ``State or
local''.
(c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for part III
of subchapter B of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 is amended by striking the item relating to section 137
and inserting the following:
``Sec. 137. National Health Service Corps loan repayments.
``Sec. 138. Cross references to other Acts.''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to payments made under section 338B(g) of the
Public Health Service Act after the date of the enactment of
this Act.
SEC. 522. TELEMEDICINE SERVICES.
The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall establish
a methodology for making payments under part B of the
medicare program for telemedicine services furnished on an
emergency basis to individuals residing in an area designated
as a health professional shortage area (under section 332(a)
of the Public Health Service Act).
Mr. Speaker, every single rule the House has adopted this session has
been a restrictive rule. You heard that correctly. The Republican House
has so far adopted 100 percent restrictive rules in this session. If it
is adopted, the rule before us will leave that 100 percent purely
restrictive rules record intact.
This is the 65th restrictive rule reported out of the Committee on
Rules in this Congress. In addition, 71 percent of the legislation
considered this session has not been reported from committee. Ten out
of 14 measures brought up this session have been unreported. Mr.
Speaker, I include the following material for the Record:
FLOOR PROCEDURE IN THE 104TH CONGRESS; COMPILED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE DEMOCRATS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Process used for floor Amendments in
Bill No. Title Resolution No. consideration order
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 1*........................ Compliance........ H. Res. 6 Closed................ None.
H. Res. 6...................... Opening Day Rules H. Res. 5 Closed; contained a None.
Package. closed rule on H.R. 1
within the closed
rule.
H.R. 5*........................ Unfunded Mandates. H. Res. 38 Restrictive; Motion N/A.
adopted over
Democratic objection
in the Committee of
the Whole to limit
debate on section 4;
Pre-printing gets
preference.
H.J. Res. 2*................... Balanced Budget... H. Res. 44 Restrictive; only 2R; 4D.
certain substitutes.
H. Res. 43..................... Committee Hearings H. Res. 43 (OJ) Restrictive; N/A.
Scheduling. considered in House
no amendments.
H.R. 101....................... To transfer a H. Res. 51 Open.................. N/A.
parcel of land to
the Taos Pueblo
Indians of New
Mexico.
H.R. 400....................... To provide for the H. Res. 52 Open.................. N/A.
exchange of lands
within Gates of
the Arctic
National Park
Preserve.
H.R. 440....................... To provide for the H. Res. 53 Open.................. N/A.
conveyance of
lands to certain
individuals in
Butte County,
California.
H.R. 2*........................ Line Item Veto.... H. Res. 55 Open; Pre-printing N/A.
gets preference.
H.R. 665*...................... Victim Restitution H. Res. 61 Open; Pre-printing N/A.
Act of 1995. gets preference.
H.R. 666*...................... Exclusionary Rule H. Res. 60 Open; Pre-printing N/A.
Reform Act of gets preference.
1995.
H.R. 667*...................... Violent Criminal H. Res. 63 Restrictive; 10 hr. N/A.
Incarceration Act Time Cap on
of 1995. amendments.
[[Page H3042]]
H.R. 668*...................... The Criminal Alien H. Res. 69 Open; Pre-printing N/A.
Deportation gets preference;
Improvement Act. Contains self-
executing provision.
H.R. 728*...................... Local Government H. Res. 79 Restrictive; 10 hr. N/A.
Law Enforcement Time Cap on
Block Grants. amendments; Pre-
printing gets
preference.
H.R. 7*........................ National Security H. Res. 83 Restrictive; 10 hr. N/A.
Revitalization Time Cap on
Act. amendments; Pre-
printing gets
preference.
H.R. 729*...................... Death Penalty/ N/A Restrictive; brought N/A.
Habeas. up under UC with a 6
hr. time cap on
amendments.
S. 2........................... Senate Compliance. N/A Closed; Put on None.
Suspension Calendar
over Democratic
objection.
H.R. 831....................... To Permanently H. Res. 88 Restrictive; makes in 1D.
Extend the Health order only the
Insurance Gibbons amendment;
Deduction for the Waives all points of
Self-Employed. order; Contains self-
executing provision.
H.R. 830*...................... The Paperwork H. Res. 91 Open.................. N/A.
Reduction Act.
H.R. 889....................... Emergency H. Res. 92 Restrictive; makes in 1D.
Supplemental/ order only the Obey
Rescinding substitute.
Certain Budget
Authority.
H.R. 450*...................... Regulatory H. Res. 93 Restrictive; 10 hr. N/A.
Moratorium. Time Cap on
amendments; Pre-
printing gets
preference.
H.R. 1022*..................... Risk Assessment... H. Res. 96 Restrictive; 10 hr. N/A.
Time Cap on
amendments.
H.R. 926*...................... Regulatory H. Res. 100 Open.................. N/A.
Flexibility.
H.R. 925*...................... Private Property H. Res. 101 Restrictive; 12 hr. 1D.
Protection Act. time cap on
amendments; Requires
Members to pre-print
their amendments in
the Record prior to
the bill's
consideration for
amendment, waives
germaneness and
budget act points of
order as well as
points of order
concerning
appropriating on a
legislative bill
against the committee
substitute used as
base text.
H.R. 1058*..................... Securities H. Res. 105 Restrictive; 8 hr. 1D.
Litigation Reform time cap on
Act. amendments; Pre-
printing gets
preference; Makes in
order the Wyden
amendment and waives
germaneness against
it.
H.R. 988*...................... The Attorney H. Res. 104 Restrictive; 7 hr. N/A.
Accountability time cap on
Act of 1995. amendments; Pre-
printing gets
preference.
H.R. 956*...................... Product Liability H. Res. 109 Restrictive; makes in 8D; 7R.
and Legal Reform order only 15 germane
Act. amendments and denies
64 germane amendments
from being considered.
H.R. 1158...................... Making Emergency H. Res. 115 Restrictive; Combines N/A.
Supplemental emergency H.R. 1158 &
Appropriations nonemergency 1159 and
and Rescissions. strikes the abortion
provision; makes in
order only pre-
printed amendments
that include offsets
within the same
chapter (deeper cuts
in programs already
cut); waives points
of order against
three amendments;
waives cl 2 of rule
XXI against the bill,
cl 2, XXI and cl 7 of
rule XVI against the
substitute; waives cl
2(e) od rule XXI
against the
amendments in the
Record; 10 hr time
cap on amendments. 30
minutes debate on
each amendment.
H.J. Res. 73*.................. Term Limits....... H. Res. 116 Restrictive; Makes in 1D; 3R
order only 4
amendments considered
under a ``Queen of
the Hill'' procedure
and denies 21 germane
amendments from being
considered.
H.R. 4*........................ Welfare Reform.... H. Res. 119 Restrictive; Makes in 5D; 26R.
order only 31
perfecting amendments
and two substitutes;
Denies 130 germane
amendments from being
considered; The
substitutes are to be
considered under a
``Queen of the Hill''
procedure; All points
of order are waived
against the
amendments.
H.R. 1271*..................... Family Privacy Act H. Res. 125 Open.................. N/A.
H.R. 660*...................... Housing for Older H. Res. 126 Open.................. N/A.
Persons Act.
H.R. 1215*..................... The Contract With H. Res. 129 Restrictive; Self 1D.
America Tax Executes language
Relief Act of that makes tax cuts
1995. contingent on the
adoption of a
balanced budget plan
and strikes section
3006. Makes in order
only one substitute.
Waives all points of
order against the
bill, substitute made
in order as original
text and Gephardt
substitute.
H.R. 483....................... Medicare Select H. Res. 130 Restrictive; waives cl 1D.
Extension. 2(1)(6) of rule XI
against the bill;
makes H.R. 1391 in
order as original
text; makes in order
only the Dingell
substitute; allows
Commerce Committee to
file a report on the
bill at any time.
H.R. 655....................... Hydrogen Future H. Res. 136 Open.................. N/A.
Act.
H.R. 1361...................... Coast Guard H. Res. 139 Open; waives sections N/A.
Authorization. 302(f) and 308(a) of
the Congressional
Budget Act against
the bill's
consideration and the
committee substitute;
waives cl 5(a) of
rule XXI against the
committee substitute.
H.R. 961....................... Clean Water Act... H. Res. 140 Open; pre-printing N/A.
gets preference;
waives sections
302(f) and 602(b) of
the Budget Act
against the bill's
consideration; waives
cl 7 of rule XVI, cl
5(a) of rule XXI and
section 302(f) of the
Budget Act against
the committee
substitute. Makes in
order Shuster
substitute as first
order of business.
H.R. 535....................... Corning National H. Res. 144 Open.................. N/A.
Fish Hatchery
Conveyance Act.
H.R. 584....................... Conveyance of the H. Res. 145 Open.................. N/A.
Fairport National
Fish Hatchery to
the State of Iowa.
H.R. 614....................... Conveyance of the H. Res. 146 Open.................. N/A.
New London
National Fish
Hatchery
Production
Facility.
H. Con. Res. 67................ Budget Resolution. H. Res. 149 Restrictive; Makes in 3D; 1R.
order 4 substitutes
under regular order;
Gephardt, Neumann/
Solomon, Payne/Owens,
President's Budget if
printed in Record on
5/17/95; waives all
points of order
against substitutes
and concurrent
resolution; suspends
application of Rule
XLIX with respect to
the resolution; self-
executes Agriculture
language.
H.R. 1561...................... American Overseas H. Res. 155 Restrictive; Requires N/A.
Interests Act of amendments to be
1995. printed in the Record
prior to their
consideration; 10 hr.
time cap; waives cl
2(1)(6) of rule XI
against the bill's
consideration; Also
waives sections
302(f), 303(a),
308(a) and 402(a)
against the bill's
consideration and the
committee amendment
in order as original
text; waives cl 5(a)
of rule XXI against
the amendment;
amendment
consideration is
closed at 2:30 p.m.
on May 25, 1995. Self-
executes provision
which removes section
2210 from the bill.
This was done at the
request of the Budget
Committee.
H.R. 1530...................... National Defense H. Res. 164 Restrictive; Makes in 36R; 18D; 2
Authorization Act order only the Bipartisan.
FY 1996. amendments printed in
the report; waives
all points of order
against the bill,
substitute and
amendments printed in
the report. Gives the
Chairman en bloc
authority. Self-
executes a provision
which strikes section
807 of the bill;
provides for an
additional 30 min. of
debate on Nunn-Lugar
section; Allows Mr.
Clinger to offer a
modification of his
amendment with the
concurrence of Ms.
Collins.
H.R. 1817...................... Military H. Res. 167 Open; waives cl. 2 and N/A.
Construction cl. 6 of rule XXI
Appropriations; against the bill; 1
FY 1996. hr. general debate;
Uses House passed
budget numbers as
threshold for
spending amounts
pending passage of
Budget.
H.R. 1854...................... Legislative Branch H. Res. 169 Restrictive; Makes in 5R; 4D; 2
Appropriations. order only 11 Bipartisan.
amendments; waives
sections 302(f) and
308(a) of the Budget
Act against the bill
and cl. 2 and cl. 6
of rule XXI against
the bill. All points
of order are waived
against the
amendments.
H.R. 1868...................... Foreign Operations H. Res. 170 Open; waives cl. 2, N/A.
Appropriations. cl. 5(b), and cl. 6
of rule XXI against
the bill; makes in
order the Gilman
amendments as first
order of business;
waives all points of
order against the
amendments; if
adopted they will be
considered as
original text; waives
cl. 2 of rule XXI
against the
amendments printed in
the report. Pre-
printing gets
priority (Hall)
(Menendez) (Goss)
(Smith, NJ).
H.R. 1905...................... Energy & Water H. Res. 171 Open; waives cl. 2 and N/A.
Appropriations. cl. 6 of rule XXI
against the bill;
makes in order the
Shuster amendment as
the first order of
business; waives all
points of order
against the
amendment; if adopted
it will be considered
as original text. Pre-
printing gets
priority.
H.J. Res. 79................... Constitutional H. Res. 173 Closed; provides one N/A.
Amendment to hour of general
Permit Congress debate and one motion
and States to to recommit with or
Prohibit the without instructions;
Physical if there are
Desecration of instructions, the MO
the American Flag. is debatable for 1 hr.
H.R. 1944...................... Recissions Bill... H. Res. 175 Restrictive; Provides N/A.
for consideration of
the bill in the
House; Permits the
Chairman of the
Appropriations
Committee to offer
one amendment which
is unamendable;
waives all points of
order against the
amendment.
H.R. 1868 (2nd rule)........... Foreign Operations H. Res. 177 Restrictive; Provides N/A.
Appropriations. for further
consideration of the
bill; makes in order
only the four
amendments printed in
the rules report (20
min. each). Waives
all points of order
against the
amendments; Prohibits
intervening motions
in the Committee of
the Whole; Provides
for an automatic rise
and report following
the disposition of
the amendments.
H.R. 1977 *Rule Defeated*...... Interior H. Res. 185 Open; waives sections N/A.
Appropriations. 302(f) and 308(a) of
the Budget Act and cl
2 and cl 6 of rule
XXI; provides that
the bill be read by
title; waives all
points of order
against the Tauzin
amendment; self-
executes Budget
Committee amendment;
waives cl 2(e) of
rule XXI against
amendments to the
bill; Pre-printing
gets priority.
H.R. 1977...................... Interior H.Res. 187 Open; waives sections N/A.
Appropriations. 302(f), 306 and
308(a) of the Budget
Act; waives clauses 2
and 6 of rule XXI
against provisions in
the bill; waives all
points of order
against the Tauzin
amendment; provides
that the bill be read
by title; self-
executes Budget
Committee amendment
and makes NEA funding
subject to House
passed authorization;
waives cl 2(e) of
rule XXI against the
amendments to the
bill; Pre-printing
gets priority.
H.R. 1976...................... Agriculture H. Res. 188 Open; waives clauses 2 N/A.
Appropriations. and 6 of rule XXI
against provisions in
the bill; provides
that the bill be read
by title; Makes Skeen
amendment first order
of business, if
adopted the amendment
will be considered as
base text (10 min.);
Pre-printing gets
priority.
H.R. 1977 (3rd rule)........... Interior H. Res. 189 Restrictive; provides N/A.
Appropriations. for the further
consideration of the
bill; allows only
amendments pre-
printed before July
14th to be
considered; limits
motions to rise.
H.R. 2020...................... Treasury Postal H. Res. 190 Open; waives cl. 2 and N/A.
Appropriations. cl. 6 of rule XXI
against provisions in
the bill; provides
the bill be read by
title; Pre-printing
gets priority.
H.J. Res. 96................... Disapproving MFN H. Res. 193 Restrictive; provides N/A.
for China. for consideration in
the House of H.R.
2058 (90 min.) And
H.J. Res. 96 (1 hr).
Waives certain
provisions of the
Trade Act.
[[Page H3043]]
H.R. 2002...................... Transportation H. Res. 194 Open; waives cl. 3 0f N/A.
Appropriations. rule XIII and section
401 (a) of the CBA
against consideration
of the bill; waives
cl. 6 and cl. 2 of
rule XXI against
provisions in the
bill; Makes in order
the Clinger/Solomon
amendment waives all
points of order
against the amendment
(Line Item Veto);
provides the bill be
read by title; Pre-
printing gets
priority. *RULE
AMENDED*.
H.R. 70........................ Exports of Alaskan H. Res. 197 Open; Makes in order N/A.
North Slope Oil. the Resources
Committee amendment
in the nature of a
substitute as
original text; Pre-
printing gets
priority; Provides a
Senate hook-up with
S. 395.
H.R. 2076...................... Commerce, Justice H. Res. 198 Open; waives cl. 2 and N/A.
Appropriations. cl. 6 of rule XXI
against provisions in
the bill; Pre-
printing gets
priority; provides
the bill be read by
title..
H.R. 2099...................... VA/HUD H. Res. 201 Open; waives cl. 2 and N/A.
Appropriations. cl. 6 of rule XXI
against provisions in
the bill; Provides
that the amendment in
part 1 of the report
is the first
business, if adopted
it will be considered
as base text (30
min.); waives all
points of order
against the Klug and
Davis amendments; Pre-
printing gets
priority; Provides
that the bill be read
by title.
S. 21.......................... Termination of H. Res. 204 Restrictive; 3 hours ID.
U.S. Arms Embargo of general debate;
on Bosnia. Makes in order an
amendment to be
offered by the
Minority Leader or a
designee (1 hr); If
motion to recommit
has instructions it
can only be offered
by the Minority
Leader or a designee.
H.R. 2126...................... Defense H. Res. 205 Open; waives cl. N/A.
Appropriations. 2(l)(6) of rule XI
and section 306 of
the Congressional
Budget Act against
consideration of the
bill; waives cl. 2
and cl. 6 of rule XXI
against provisions in
the bill; self-
executes a strike of
sections 8021 and
8024 of the bill as
requested by the
Budget Committee; Pre-
printing gets
priority; Provides
the bill be read by
title.
H.R. 1555...................... Communications Act H. Res. 207 Restrictive; waives 2R/3D/3 Bi-
of 1995. sec. 302(f) of the partisan.
Budget Act against
consideration of the
bill; Makes in order
the Commerce
Committee amendment
as original text and
waives sec. 302(f) of
the Budget Act and
cl. 5(a) of rule XXI
against the
amendment; Makes in
order the Bliely
amendment (30 min.)
as the first order of
business, if adopted
it will be original
text; makes in order
only the amendments
printed in the report
and waives all points
of order against the
amendments; provides
a Senate hook-up with
S. 652.
H.R. 2127...................... Labor/HHS H. Res. 208 Open; Provides that N/A.
Appropriations the first order of
Act. business will be the
managers amendments
(10 min.), if adopted
they will be
considered as base
text; waives cl. 2
and cl. 6 of rule XXI
against provisions in
the bill; waives all
points of order
against certain
amendments printed in
the report; Pre-
printing gets
priority; Provides
the bill be read by
title.
H.R. 1594...................... Economically H. Res. 215 Open; 2 hr of gen. N/A.
Targeted debate. makes in
Investments. order the committee
substitute as
original text.
H.R. 1655...................... Intelligence H. Res. 216 Restrictive; waives N/A.
Authorization. sections 302(f),
308(a) and 401(b) of
the Budget Act. Makes
in order the
committee substitute
as modified by Govt.
Reform amend
(striking sec. 505)
and an amendment
striking title VII.
Cl 7 of rule XVI and
cl 5(a) of rule XXI
are waived against
the substitute.
Sections 302(f) and
401(b) of the CBA are
also waived against
the substitute.
Amendments must also
be pre-printed in the
Congressional record.
H.R. 1162...................... Deficit Reduction H. Res. 218 Open; waives cl 7 of N/A.
Lock Box. rule XVI against the
committee substitute
made in order as
original text; Pre-
printing gets
priority.
H.R. 1670...................... Federal H. Res. 219 Open; waives sections N/A.
Acquisition 302(f) and 308(a) of
Reform Act of the Budget Act
1995. against consideration
of the bill; bill
will be read by
title; waives cl 5(a)
of rule XXI and
section 302(f) of the
Budget Act against
the committee
substitute. Pre-
printing gets
priority.
H.R. 1617...................... To Consolidate and H. Res. 222 Open; waives section N/A.
Reform Workforce 302(f) and 401(b) of
Development and the Budget Act
Literacy Programs against the
Act (CAREERS). substitute made in
order as original
text (H.R. 2332), cl.
5(a) of rule XXI is
also waived against
the substitute.
provides for
consideration of the
managers amendment
(10 min.) If adopted,
it is considered as
base text.
H.R. 2274...................... National Highway H. Res. 224 Open; waives section N/A.
System 302(f) of the Budget
Designation Act Act against
of 1995. consideration of the
bill; Makes H.R. 2349
in order as original
text; waives section
302(f) of the Budget
Act against the
substitute; provides
for the consideration
of a managers
amendment (10 min.)
If adopted, it is
considered as base
text; Pre-printing
gets priority.
H.R. 927....................... Cuban Liberty and H. Res. 225 Restrictive; waives cl 2R/2D
Democratic 2(L)(2)(B) of rule XI
Solidarity Act of against consideration
1995. of the bill; makes in
order H.R. 2347 as
base text; waives cl
7 of rule XVI against
the substitute; Makes
Hamilton amendment
the first amendment
to be considered (1
hr). Makes in order
only amendments
printed in the report.
H.R. 743....................... The Teamwork for H. Res. 226 Open; waives cl N/A.
Employees and 2(l)(2)(b) of rule XI
managers Act of against consideration
1995. of the bill; makes in
order the committee
amendment as original
text; Pre-printing
get priority.
H.R. 1170...................... 3-Judge Court for H. Res. 227 Open; makes in order a N/A.
Certain committee amendment
Injunctions. as original text; Pre-
printing gets
priority.
H.R. 1601...................... International H. Res. 228 Open; makes in order a N/A.
Space Station committee amendment
Authorization Act as original text; pre-
of 1995. printing gets
priority.
H.J. Res. 108.................. Making Continuing H. Res. 230 Closed; Provides for ..............
Appropriations the immediate
for FY 1996. consideration of the
CR; one motion to
recommit which may
have instructions
only if offered by
the Minority Leader
or a designee.
H.R. 2405...................... Omnibus Civilian H. Res. 234 Open; self-executes a N/A.
Science provision striking
Authorization Act section 304(b)(3) of
of 1995. the bill (Commerce
Committee request);
Pre-printing gets
priority.
H.R. 2259...................... To Disapprove H. Res. 237 Restrictive; waives cl 1D
Certain 2(l)(2)(B) of rule XI
Sentencing against the bill's
Guideline consideration; makes
Amendments. in order the text of
the Senate bill S.
1254 as original
text; Makes in order
only a Conyers
substitute; provides
a senate hook-up
after adoption.
H.R. 2425...................... Medicare H. Res. 238 Restrictive; waives 1D
Preservation Act. all points of order
against the bill's
consideration; makes
in order the text of
H.R. 2485 as original
text; waives all
points of order
against H.R. 2485;
makes in order only
an amendment offered
by the Minority
Leader or a designee;
waives all points of
order against the
amendment; waives cl
5 of rule
XXI (\3/5\
requirement on votes
raising taxes).
H.R. 2492...................... Legislative Branch H. Res. 239 Restrictive; provides N/A.
Appropriations for consideration of
Bill. the bill in the House.
H.R. 2491...................... 7 Year Balanced H. Res. 245 Restrictive; makes in 1D
H. Con. Res. 109............... Budget order H.R. 2517 as
Reconciliation original text; waives
Social Security all pints of order
Earnings Test against the bill;
Reform. Makes in order only
H.R. 2530 as an
amendment only if
offered by the
Minority Leader or a
designee; waives all
points of order
against the
amendment; waives cl
5 of rule
XXI (\3/5\
requirement on votes
raising taxes).
H.R. 1833...................... Partial Birth H. Res. 251 Closed................ N/A.
Abortion Ban Act
of 1995.
H.R. 2546...................... D.C. H. Res. 252 Restrictive; waives N/A
Appropriations FY all points of order
1996. against the bill's
consideration; Makes
in order the Walsh
amendment as the
first order of
business (10 min.);
if adopted it is
considered as base
text; waives cl 2 and
6 of rule XXI against
the bill; makes in
order the Bonilla,
Gunderson and
Hostettler amendments
(30 min.); waives all
points of order
against the
amendments; debate on
any further
amendments is limited
to 30 min. each.
H.J. Res. 115.................. Further Continuing H. Res. 257 Closed; Provides for N/A
Appropriations the immediate
for FY 1996. consideration of the
CR; one motion to
recommit which may
have instructions
only if offered by
the Minority Leader
or a designee.
H.R. 2586...................... Temporary Increase H. Res. 258 Restrictive; Provides 5R
in the Statutory for the immediate
Debt Limit. consideration of the
CR; one motion to
recommit which may
have instructions
only if offered by
the Minority Leader
or a designee; self-
executes 4 amendments
in the rule; Solomon,
Medicare Coverage of
Certain Anti-Cancer
Drug Treatments,
Habeas Corpus Reform,
Chrysler (MI); makes
in order the Walker
amend (40 min.) on
regulatory reform.
H.R. 2539...................... ICC Termination... H. Res. 259 Open; waives section ..............
302(f) and section
308(a).
H.J. Res. 115.................. Further Continuing H. Res. 261 Closed; provides for N/A.
Appropriations the immediate
for FY 1996. consideration of a
motion by the
Majority Leader or
his designees to
dispose of the Senate
amendments (1hr).
H.R. 2586...................... Temporary Increase H. Res. 262 Closed; provides for N/A.
in the Statutory the immediate
Limit on the consideration of a
Public Debt. motion by the
Majority Leader or
his designees to
dispose of the Senate
amendments (1hr).
H. Res. 250.................... House Gift Rule H. Res. 268 Closed; provides for 2R
Reform. consideration of the
bill in the House; 30
min. of debate; makes
in order the Burton
amendment and the
Gingrich en bloc
amendment (30 min.
each); waives all
points of order
against the
amendments; Gingrich
is only in order if
Burton fails or is
not offered.
H.R. 2564...................... Lobbying H. Res. 269 Open; waives cl. N/A.
Disclosure Act of 2(l)(6) of rule XI
1995. against the bill's
consideration; waives
all points of order
against the Istook
and McIntosh
amendments.
H.R. 2606...................... Prohibition on H. Res. 273 Restrictive; waives N/A.
Funds for Bosnia all points of order
Deployment. against the bill's
consideration;
provides one motion
to amend if offered
by the Minority
Leader or designee (1
hr non-amendable);
motion to recommit
which may have
instructions only if
offered by Minority
Leader or his
designee; if Minority
Leader motion is not
offered debate time
will be extended by 1
hr.
H.R. 1788...................... Amtrak Reform and H. Res. 289 Open; waives all N/A.
Privatization Act points of order
of 1995. against the bill's
consideration; makes
in order the
Transportation
substitute modified
by the amend in the
report; Bill read by
title; waives all
points of order
against the
substitute; makes in
order a managers
amend as the first
order of business, if
adopted it is
considered base text
(10 min.); waives all
points of order
against the
amendment; Pre-
printing gets
priority.
H.R. 1350...................... Maritime Security H. Res. 287 Open; makes in order N/A.
Act of 1995. the committee
substitute as
original text; makes
in order a managers
amendment which if
adopted is considered
as original text (20
min.) unamendable;
pre-printing gets
priority.
H.R. 2621...................... To Protect Federal H. Res. Closed; provides for N/A.
Trust Funds. the adoption of the
Ways & Means
amendment printed in
the report. 1 hr. of
general debate.
[[Page H3044]]
H.R. 1745...................... Utah Public Lands H.Res. 303 Open; waives cl N/A.
Management Act of 2(l)(6) of rule XI
1995. and sections 302(f)
and 311(a) of the
Budget Act against
the bill's
consideration. Makes
in order the
Resources substitute
as base text and
waives cl 7 of rule
XVI and sections
302(f) and 308(a) of
the Budget Act; makes
in order a managers'
amend as the first
order of business, if
adopted it is
considered base text
(10 min)..
H.Res. 304..................... Providing for N/A Closed; makes in order 1D; 2R
Debate and three resolutions;
Consideration of H.R. 2770 (Dorman),
Three Measures H.Res. 302 (Buyer),
Relating to U.S. and H.Res. 306
Troop Deployments (Gephardt); 1 hour of
in Bosnia. debate on each..
H.Res. 309..................... Revised Budget H.Res. 309 Closed; provides 2 N/A.
Resolution. hours of general
debate in the House..
H.R. 558....................... Texas Low-Level H.Res. 313 Open; pre-printing N/A.
Radioactive Waste gets priority.
Disposal Compact
Consent Act.
H.R. 2677...................... The National Parks H. Res. 323 Closed; consideration N/A.
and National in the House; self-
Wildlife Refuge executes Young
Systems Freedom amendment.
Act of 1995.
PROCEDURE IN THE 104TH CONGRESS 2D SESSION
H.R. 1643...................... To authorize the H. Res. 334 Closed; provides to N/A.
extension of take the bill from
nondiscriminatory the Speaker's table
treatment (MFN) with the Senate
to the products amendment, and
of Bulgaria. consider in the House
the motion printed in
the Rules Committee
report; 1 hr. of
general debate;
previous question is
considered as
ordered. ** NR.
H.J. Res. 134.................. Making continuing H. Res. 336 Closed; provides to N/A.
H. Con. Res. 131............... appropriations/ take from the
establishing Speaker's table H.J.
procedures making Res. 134 with the
the transmission Senate amendment and
of the continuing concur with the
resolution H.J. Senate amendment with
Res. 134. an amendment (H. Con.
Res. 131) which is
self-executed in the
rule. The rule
provides further that
the bill shall not be
sent back to the
Senate until the
Senate agrees to the
provisions of H. Con.
Res. 131. ** NR.
H. R. 1358..................... Conveyance of H. Res. 338 Closed; provides to N/A.
National Marine take the bill from
Fisheries Service the Speakers table
Laboratory at with the Senate
Gloucester, amendment, and
Massachusetts. consider in the house
the motion printed in
the Rules Committee
report; 1 hr. of
general debate;
previous quesetion is
considered as
ordered. ** NR.
H.R. 2924...................... Social Security H. Res. 355 Closed; ** NR......... N/A.
Guarantee Act.
H.R. 2854...................... The Agricultural H. Res. 366 Restrictive; waives 5D; 9R; 2
Market Transition all points of order Bipartisan.
Program. against the bill; 2
hrs of general
debate; makes in
order a committee
substitute as
original text and
waives all points of
order against the
substitute; makes in
order only the 16
amends printed in the
report and waives all
points of order
against the
amendments;
circumvents unfunded
mandates law;
Chairman has en bloc
authority for amends
in report (20 min.)
on each en bloc..
H.R. 994....................... Regulatory Sunset H.Res 368 Open rule; makes in N/A.
& Review Act of order the Hyde
1995. substitute printed in
the Record as
original text; waives
cl 7 of rule XVI
against the
substitute; Pre-
printing gets
priority; vacates the
House action on S.
219 and provides to
take the bill from
the Speakers table
and consider the
Senate bill; allows
Chrmn. Clinger a
motion to strike all
after the enacting
clause of the Senate
bill and insert the
text of H.R. 994 as
passed by the House
(1 hr) debate; waives
germaneness against
the motion; provides
if the motion is
adopted that it is in
order for the House
to insist on its
amendments and
request a conference.
H.R. 3021...................... To Guarantee the H.Res 371 Closed rule; gives one N/A.
Continuing Full motion to recommit,
Investment of which if it contains
Social security instructions, may
and Other Federal only if offered by
Funds in the Minority Leader
Obligations of or his designee. **
the United States. NR.
H.R. 3019...................... A Further H.Res. 372 Restrictive; self- 2D/2R.
Downpayment executes CBO language
Toward a Balanced regarding contingency
Budget. funds in section 2 of
the rule; makes in
order only the
amendments printed in
the report; Lowey (20
min), Istook (20
min), Crapo (20 min),
Obey (1 hr); waives
all points of order
against the
amendments; give one
motion to recommit,
which if contains
instructions, may
only if offered by
the Minority Leader
or his designee. **
NR.
H.R. 2703...................... The Effective H. Res. 380 Restrictive; makes in 6D; 7R; 4
Death Penalty and order only the Bipartisan.
Public Safety Act amendments printed in
of 1996. the report; waives
all points of orer
against the
amendments; gives
Judiciary Chairman en
bloc authority (20
min.) on enblocs;
provides a Senate
hook-up with S. 735.
** NR.
H.R. 2202...................... The Immigration H. Res. 384 Restrictive; waives 12D; 19R; 1
and National all points of order Bipartisan.
Interest Act of against the bill and
1995. amendments in the
report except for
those arising under
sec. 425(a) of the
Budget Act (unfunded
mandates); 2 hrs. of
general debate on the
bill; makes in order
the committee
substitute as base
text; makes in order
only the amends in
the report; gives the
Judiciary Chairman en
bloc authority (20
min.) of debate on
the en blocs; self-
executes the Smith
(TX) amendment re:
employee verification
program..
H.J. Res. 165.................. Making further H. Res. 386 Closed; provides for N/A.
continuing the consideration of
appropriations the CR in the House
for FY 1996. and gives one motion
to recommit which may
contain instructions
only if offered by
the Minority Leader;
the rule also waives
cl 4(b) of rule XI
against the
following: an omnibus
appropriations bill,
another CR, a bill
extending the debt
limit. ** NR.
H.R. 125....................... The Gun Crime H. Res. 388 Closed; self-executes N/A
Enforcement and an amendment;
Second Amendment provides one motion
Restoration Act to recommit which may
of 1996. contain instructions
only if offered by
the Minority Leader
or his designee. **
NR.
H.R. 3136...................... The Contract With H. Res. 391 Closed; provides for N/A
America the consideration of
Advancement Act the bill in the
of 1996. House; self-executes
an amendment in the
Rules report; waives
all points of order,
except sec.
425(a)(unfunded
mandates) of the CBA,
against the bill's
consideration; orders
the PQ except 1 hr.
of general debate
between the Chairman
and Ranking Member of
Ways and Means; one
Archer amendment (10
min.); one motion to
recommit which may
contain instructions
only if offered by
the Minority Leader
or his designee;
Provides a Senate
hookup if the Senate
passes S. 4 by March
30, 1996. **NR.
H.R. 3103...................... The Health H. Res. 392 Restrictive: 2 hrs. of N/A
Coverage general debate (45
Availability and min. split by Ways
Affordability Act and Means) (45 split
of 1996. by Commerce) (30
split by Economic and
Educational
Opportunities); self-
executes H.R. 3160 as
modified by the
amendment in the
Rules report as
original text; waives
all points of order,
except sec. 425(a)
(unfunded mandates)
of the CBA; makes in
order a Democratic
substitute (1 hr.)
waives all points of
order, except sec.
425(a) (unfunded
mandates) of the CBA,
against the
amendment; one motion
to recommit which may
contain instructions
only if offered by
the Minority Leader
or his designee;
waives cl 5(c) of
Rule XXI (requiring 3/
5 vote on any tax
increase) on votes on
the bill, amendments
or conference reports.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Contract Bills, 67% restrictive; 33% open. ** All legislation 1st Session, 53% restrictive; 47% open. *** All
legislation 2d Session, 94% restrictive; 6% open. **** All legislation 104th Congress, 65% restrictive; 35%
open. ***** NR indicates that the legislation being considered by the House for amendment has circumvented
standard procedure and was never reported from any House committee. ****** Restrictive rules are those which
limit the number of amendments which can be offered, and include so-called modified open and modified closed
rules as well as completely closed rules and rules providing for consideration in the House as opposed to the
Committee of the Whole. This definition of restrictive rule is taken from the Republican chart of resolutions
reported from the Rules Committee in the 103d Congress. N/A means not available.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for
1 minute.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to say that we have
considered many amendments in this process and it is quite clear there
are many good ideas.
This does not pretend to be comprehensive health care reform. This is
very special, and it is meant to be doable and accomplished now, to
take a subject we think we can do to make improvement for access and
affordability for a great many Americans, to take the bill the Senate
has worked on and to make it better here and to send it to the American
people. We think that is doable.
We have given the other side two bites at this. We have given them
their own substitute and the right to recommit, of course.
Some have said, ``Oh, my gosh; what we need to do here is get back on
the health care track.'' Let me remind you, the health care track of
the last 40 years was derailed in a monumental train wreck under the
Clinton administration. They cannot even find the engineer for that.
We now have something that is doable today, and all we need to do is
get this rule on the floor, have the debate, vote this health care
reform, and we come out with more health care opportunities for more
Americans than we have today. It is worth doing.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
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
[[Page H3045]]
taken on the question of agreeing to the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 229,
nays 186, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 103]
YEAS--229
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
Campbell
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
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
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
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
Roth
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
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)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NAYS--186
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Cardin
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (MI)
Condit
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
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moran
Murtha
Nadler
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
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--16
Becerra
Bryant (TX)
Collins (IL)
Conyers
Fields (LA)
Fowler
Lantos
McNulty
Neal
Ros-Lehtinen
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Stokes
Torricelli
Weldon (PA)
Wilson
{time} 1809
Ms. FURSE and Mr. BALDACCI changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Mr. COBURN and Mr. THOMAS of California 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. Combest). The question is on the
resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________