[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 110 (Wednesday, July 30, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H6303-H6312]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
WAIVING REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 4(b) OF RULE XI WITH RESPECT TO
CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS REPORTED FROM COMMITTEE ON RULES
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 201 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 201
Resolved, That the requirement of clause 4(b) of rule XI
for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee
on Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is
waived with respect to the following measures:
(1) Any resolution reported before August 3, 1997,
providing for consideration or disposition of the bill (H.R.
2015) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to subsections
(b)(1) and (c) of section 105 of the concurrent resolution on
the budget for fiscal year 1998, an amendment thereto, a
conference report thereon, or an amendment reported in
disagreement from a conference thereon.
(2) Any resolution reported after July 30, 1997, and before
August 3, 1997, providing for consideration or disposition of
the bill (H.R. 2014) to provide for reconciliation pursuant
to subsections (b)(2) and (d) of section 105 of the
concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1998, an
amendment thereto, a conference report thereon, or an
amendment reported in disagreement from a conference thereon.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gibbons). The gentleman from Georgia
[Mr. Linder] is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley],
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 201 waives clause 4(b) of rule XI,
requiring a two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the same day as it is
reported from the Committee on Rules, providing for consideration of
specified measures.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 201 applies to rules for the conference
report on H.R. 2015, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, an amendment
thereto, a conference report thereon, or an amendment reported in
disagreement from a conference thereon reported before August 3, 1997.
{time} 1030
In addition, the resolution also applies to rules for the conference
report on H.R. 2014, the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, an amendment
thereto, a conference report thereon, or an amendment reported in
disagreement from a conference thereon reported after July 30, 1997,
and before August 3, 1997.
As Members are aware, House rules require a two-thirds vote to
consider a rule on the same day it is reported from the Committee on
Rules. In order to expedite consideration of this historic spending and
tax cut package that will balance the budget, the Committee on Rules
granted a rule that will waive the two-thirds vote requirement for
another rule on the spending cut portion of the budget agreement for
Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday. The rule would further waive
the two-thirds vote requirement for a rule on the tax component for
Thursday, Friday, and Saturday.
Mr. Speaker, the House wants to see the spending cuts conference
report on the floor today and the tax cut conference report on the
floor tomorrow. We have waited since 1969 for legislation that will
bring our Federal budget into balance, and this resolution will help
assure that we achieve this goal. The authority granted by this
resolution will allow us the flexibility to get the important job done
before the August district work period and respond to any changes the
other body may make to the legislation through the Byrd rule.
Mr. Speaker, this rule allows us to consider a budget that is a
victory for American families and smaller government. It is a budget
that will provide this Nation with its first balanced budget in 30
years.
For decades, Congress proved that it could not restrain itself from
spending more money than the Treasury collected in revenues. Past
Congresses actually managed to spend all revenues and then some.
A new majority arrived in Congress in January 1995 that understand
that the solution to our budget woes would be found in controlling
spending. When the new Congress arrived, the deficit was $164 billion.
In fiscal year 1996, it dropped to $107 billion. It will be
approximately $67 billion by the end of fiscal year 1997. There was a
report recently that the revenue estimates coming in August may make it
even less than that.
There was a chronic growth of Government for decades, but we have
been reducing the size of Government constantly. We all know that these
significant achievements would have been absolutely unthinkable only 3
years ago.
With the help of this rule, we will fulfill our promise to the
American people to balance the budget by cutting wasteful Government
spending, preserve, protect, and strengthen Medicare, and produce real
tax relief for middle-class families.
House Resolution 202 was favorably reported out of the Committee on
Rules yesterday. I urge my colleagues to support the resolution so that
we may proceed with debate and consideration of a historic budget that
has less Government, less taxes, and more freedom for Americans to
spend their money how they see fit.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from
Georgia [Mr. Linder], for yielding me the customary half hour; and I
yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, anyone who thought the bipartisanship on the budget was
too good to be true was right. Despite agreements with the White House,
despite compromises on the part of my Republican colleagues, despite
some very hard work by Democrats and Republicans, the Republican
leadership has decided to throw bipartisanship right out the window.
The Republican leadership has decided to ram the budget bills through
the House with this martial law rule. The Republican leadership, Mr.
Speaker, has decided that the many, many days of hard work that went
into these bills are not worth giving Members enough time to read them.
The rule we are considering today gives Members hardly any time to
read the budget before they vote on it. These bills contain some $94
billion of tax cuts and $115 billion in Medicare cuts, $13 billion in
Medicaid cuts, $1.8 billion in housing cuts. Some people say they are
great bills, and I for one want to be able to vote for them.
But, Mr. Speaker, I need to know what is in the bills. I want to vote
for tax cuts, but I want to know which tax cuts are in the bill. I want
to vote for some of these spending measures, but, again, I want to know
what spending measures are in this bill, and this rule certainly does
not give me or anyone else in the House that opportunity. If this rule
passes, the Republican leadership can bring up the spending and tax
parts of the reconciliation bills immediately.
Mr. Speaker, the ink is not even dry yet. Mr. Speaker, 1,000 pages
were dropped at my door at 3:30 this morning to read. It is impossible.
Members have not even had that opportunity to see this bill. There is
nobody, nobody in this House that has read this bill.
This is one of the most important bills we are going to be asked to
vote
[[Page H6304]]
on this year, and I think the membership should at least have 10 hours
to look at this matter in order that they can arm themselves and find
out exactly what is in this bill. I think that something this
important, this big, should be read as completely as possible before
any vote is cast.
So I ask that my colleagues join me in defeating the previous
question so we can guarantee that Members have at least 10 hours to
read this bill. Mr. Speaker, this is not a dilatory tactic. I want to
get out of here as soon as anybody else, but I want to be sure that my
vote on this bill is as a result of being well-informed.
Nobody is well-informed on this bill. The only information we in the
Congress have, most of us in the Congress have, is what we read in the
papers this morning and yesterday or watched on TV. Mr. Speaker, that
is not enough. So I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule. And, as I
say, Members should at least have the chance to read this bill before
we vote on it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am just shocked that this is the first
time this has ever happened. I have been here 5 years, and it never
happened before when the Democrats were in charge. We will try to make
that better for the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley].
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Iowa [Mr. Ganske].
Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by my
colleague from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley]. There is a pile of paper
there. I am in support of this rule, and I think we should move on with
the votes today. I will support the tax cutting bill and the balanced
budget bill.
As a member of the Committee on Commerce, I have been heavily
involved in the Medicare portions; and, so, I feel like I have a pretty
firm grasp of what is in that bill. I also have made an extra effort to
figure out what is in the tax cutting bill; and on the basis of that
knowledge, I feel that I am well-informed and can make a good decision
on whether to support these bills.
Let me explain to my colleagues why I am supporting these bills,
because I am one of the Republicans who voted against the balanced
budget bill earlier this month. The reason that I did that was because
I am concerned about how well the economy is going to do. Just like
everyone else in this body, I am praying that the economy continues to
do well. I was also concerned that we should do a little bit more with
reducing spending rather than having more spending in the bill.
However, these two bills that we are talking about have to do with
keeping promises. On the tax cutting side of the bill, I made promises
before I went to Congress to fulfill a $500 per child tax credit. And
we are doing that.
On the Medicare side, we are making some significant improvements in
Medicare. For instance, in my home State of Iowa, a health care plan
would get paid in some of my rural counties about $250 per month to
provide services for senior citizens; whereas in other parts of the
country, we are looking at $750 per month payment to a health plan.
That means senior citizens in those areas can get pharmaceuticals and
eyeglasses and hearing aids, even membership in health fitness clubs.
Yet, we in Iowa who are paying the same taxes do not get those
benefits. This bill will move toward an equalization of that funding
formula. That is only fair, and it is very important.
The medical savings accounts. I am very much in favor of medical
savings accounts as an option. I believe that senior citizens will take
advantage of this. It is not more for the rich and the healthy. There
are just as many incentives for those who have illnesses to pick
medical savings account.
Fraud. We are tightening up the home health care area with the
prospective payment system. In the current Medicare system, we have
maybe 20 percent fraud in that program. In the current Medicare system
of the bill, in the bill that we are going to be voting on, we are
going to tighten up that and reduce that fraud in that component.
In patient protections, I have worked very hard working with the
chairman of all of the committees on both sides of the aisle to get
some important patient protections in there. I have written a bill, the
Patient Right to Know Act, which would ban gag clauses, clauses that
HMO's put into their contracts that prevent physicians from telling
patients all of their treatment options. And guess what? In this bill,
we have a ban on those gag clauses. That bill is cosponsored by 286
Members of this body in a bipartisan manner and is endorsed by over 200
organizations, and it is in the bill. And we have a lay person's
definition of an emergency, so that if you have crushing chest pain and
you go to the emergency room because you are worried about having a
heart attack, you cannot have your coverage denied if they find out
that you have an intestinal infection instead.
So there are many important things in this. So we have a funding
formula fairness correction. We have medical savings accounts. We are
addressing fraud. We have got good consumer and patient protection in
the Medicare portion of this bill.
On the tax side, it is promises made, promises kept. We promised
middle-class taxpayers a $500 per child tax credit, and we are
delivering on that. There are many things in this bill that will be
important for small businesses, for farmers.
I represent a lot of farmers. We are going to have 3-year income
averaging for farmers. That is important because some years the crops
do not come in, you have bad weather, or whatever, so you have highs
and lows. And a 3-year income averaging will even that out for them.
We have capital gains tax reduction. People say, well, capital gains
reduction is for the rich. I tell my colleagues, according to a 1993
IRS study, something like 70 percent of all capital gains that are
filed with the IRS are filed by people who earn less than $75,000. That
is not the rich. Capital gains reductions will help those who are
selling homes, et cetera.
We have in this bill a movement towards 100 percent deductibility for
your health insurance. A bill we passed last year over a period of time
would increase out to 80 percent. But in this bill, we are increasing
that over a period of time to 100 percent deductibility for the self-
employed. That puts them on an even par with people who are receiving
their health insurance through a major employer, like General Motors.
That is only fair, also.
Finally, we have in this a commission to look at the long term
implications of what we need to do for Medicare reform. We, in this
bill, are making Medicare solvent for about the next 10 years. But we
have got my generation, the baby boomers, coming down the road; and in
about 15 years, the baby boomers start to retire and we are going to
need to look at pensions and health care entitlements.
So we are setting up a commission that is supposed to report back to
Congress and the administration in about 18 months, and then Congress
will look at those recommendations and will need to act on that. So I
do not think that we are abrogating our responsibility in that area,
also.
So, Mr. Speaker, I would just close by saying I support this rule.
For all of my colleagues who voted against the balanced budget, I think
that they should support the tax bill that we are going to be voting on
in the next few days and the balanced budget bill.
There are lots and lots of good things in both of these bills. They
have been worked on in a bipartisan fashion with the administration and
with Members of the opposite aisle. They are good first steps toward
financial solvency, balancing the budget, saving Medicare, and
providing tax relief for working families.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Moran].
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this rule, but I
want to make it clear that I support this bill. I think we will find
that many Members, at least on the Democratic side of the aisle, will
vote against the rule even though they do support the bill itself.
Now why would we vote against the rule if we support the bill itself?
{time} 1045
We have a responsibility to learn as much as we can about what we are
voting on. There are a thousand pages in this bill. None of us will
have read it.
[[Page H6305]]
What we have to do is to take on faith what is contained in the bill.
None of us would read all of the bill, even if we went by regular order
and had an entire day. But what we would do is to look at those
components of the bill that we have worked on personally, that we
understand fully, and that we can advise our colleagues on. We do not
have that ability when a thousand-page bill is presented at 3:30 in the
morning and then the next morning we have to vote on it. That is what
is going to happen today. I think our constituents expect more from us.
They expect us to be better informed.
Why are we going to support the bill? What are we taking on faith?
Well, this bill would accomplish 10-year deficit savings of $900
billion. Think of how important this bill is. Nine hundred billion
dollars in reduced spending over the next 10 years. It would accomplish
the first balanced budget since 1969.
It has $24 billion in block grants for children's health covering 5
million currently uninsured children. This is the largest expansion of
children's health we have done in more than 30 years since Medicaid was
enacted in 1965.
It increases taxes on cigarettes in the spending part of this bill, a
very controversial issue, although one which I happen to support.
It restores SSI and Medicaid benefits to legal immigrants. It spends
$3 billion in grants for welfare to work. It increases spending on food
stamps by $1.5 billion for people who otherwise would have fallen
through the cracks.
It cuts Medicare by $115 billion in 5 years, reducing payments to
hospitals and doctors so that we can keep the Medicare trust fund
solvent, but we need to know the particulars of that.
It cuts $4.8 billion from Federal employees' retirement plans, a very
controversial issue, particularly in an area such as I represent where
we have many Federal employees that are going to be paying half a
percent more for their retirement plan. I would like to see the full
legislative language on that.
It cuts $1.8 billion in student loans and $1.8 billion in housing
over 5 years.
These are very controversial, very important issues. As we understand
them, the decisions that were made were understandable compromises in
virtually every case. But again we are having to take this on faith. I
do think that the country would have been better served had this rule
given the Members of this body a customary full day, as we normally
have. There is a reason for that rule, so that if one is interested in
an issue, they can take 24 hours and make sure that they know what they
are voting on. We could be staying in Friday, we could have a full day,
and we would have the opportunity to be knowledgeably voting on as
important a bill as this body has considered for a very long time. We
would be able to be much more responsible with respect to our vote
which is what our constituents expect of us.
We have gotten into a pattern of waiving these rules. We ought to
understand there is a reason for these rules, there is a reason why
they should be followed, and I think we need to oppose this rule,
although from everything we can learn that we have been told by others
that were in the negotiations, a handful of people that were actually
part of the negotiations, this is a bill we can and we should support
and I would urge support for the balanced budget agreement itself.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I
am entertained by the crocodile tears that I hear about the length of
time not to read the bill when everybody knows they would not have read
it anyway. I believe it was in 1984 when Speaker Wright brought a $1.3
trillion budget to the floor with 1 hour notice and even the Committee
on Rules did not see it.
Let me tell my colleagues what is in this bill. A significant part of
the problem with large Government programs has been the Soviet-style
administration of them, the central command economy that decides on
high what a doctor should earn, what a hospital visit should pay for.
And over time, these all become absolutely rife with fraud. We just
learned 2 weeks ago that an audit of the Health Care Financing
Administration shows that about $23 billion a year is wasted in fraud,
overpayment, and misuse. The records are in such disarray that we do
not even know at the Federal level who is overpaid and how to recover
it, and indeed we discovered in that audit that many people were
writing checks or signing checks for the Health Care Financing
Administration of the Federal Government without the legal authority to
do so. This bill begins to crack down on that fraud. That $23 billion
per year over 5 years is exactly how much we are reducing the rate of
growth in the increase in spending of Medicare and it is taken out by
just fraud and abuse.
We heard last week that in administering home health care across this
country, roughly 40 percent could be fraud. As much as 40 percent is
going to people who are not in homes, being treated for home health
care, not unable to leave their homes. Going to the prospective payment
system is going to eliminate the incentive to do that. We are going to
change the way we deliver these services so that we have less incentive
to cheat and more incentive to save.
The ability to provide not the $500 child tax credit to low-income
working families, that only goes to people who have actual obligations
to the Federal Government, but by changing the way in which we provide
the formula for the earned income credit, after having learned that 21
percent of the money being spent in the earned income credit is
fraudulent; by changing the formulas, the administration and the White
House has decided that they can find ways to save $4.5 billion in that
program and use that to enhance their earned income credit for low-
income working people to replace what the $500-per-child tax credit
does for higher earning families. By changing the model, the structure
of the delivery of these services from the large Federal command-style
bureaucracies, so well known by the Soviet Union that we seem to have
adopted here, and getting out the fraud and abuse, we are confident
that we can save hundreds of billions of dollars over time and provide
better services with the money we are spending.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
Mr. ROEMER. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise with hesitation and reservation about the rule,
but with strong support for the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, this certainly is history in the making, and we do not
use that term lightly when we bring both the tax cut and the spending
bill before this body. This bill will receive my strong support both on
the tax and the spending side because it helps small children, it helps
small businesses and small farmers and it helps make Government smaller
and smarter. It does that by structurally balancing the budget and
balancing the budget with the right priorities. Structurally balancing
the budget so we borrow $900 billion less but we also create new
programs for children, new programs for education, restructure Medicare
to extend its solvency by a decade to help our senior citizens. It is
the right values to balance the budget and the right values on people.
So I will strongly support this.
What does the $900 billion mean for us? That spending side of $900
billion in less borrowing is almost a tax cut by itself. That helps the
American people by hopefully lowering their payments on mortgages and
interest rates and helps the economy.
The other part, what about the tax cut part? What about the spending
part on children's initiatives? I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that this
bill for kids' initiatives for health came out of this body with $16
billion. It is now before this body with $24 billion, the largest
expenditure on children's health since 1965 with the creation of
Medicaid; the largest program for uninsured children in 32 years. I
strongly support that.
I strongly support what this does for Pell grants. The largest
increase in Pell grants in the history of the Pell grant program. We
will spend more in new innovative ways to reform and modify education
than the Great Society in the 1960's. This is a bill that helps our
small farmers and small businesses, balances the budget, borrows less
money, creates smaller and smarter Government, and I hope it receives
bipartisan support.
[[Page H6306]]
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Indiana
for his comments with respect to his comments on the Pell grants and
funding for education. We are going to, without reducing any of the
amounts of the numbers of students available for them, save $1.7
billion in improving the way they are administered, and that is a real
savings that governments ought to look to.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr.
Ramstad].
(Mr. RAMSTAD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. RAMSTAD. I thank my distinguished colleague for yielding me this
time.
It is amazing, Mr. Speaker, what we can do, the President and the
Congress, when we work together in a bipartisan, pragmatic way for this
country. That is why we are here today on an historic threshold, and I
rise in strong support of the legislation before us today, Mr. Speaker,
which will balance the budget and expand health care choices for the
seniors of our country while preserving and protecting Medicare.
Not only do we save Medicare from bankruptcy but we build a strong
foundation so that Medicare can be preserved for the next generation.
We give seniors the increased health care coverage where they need it
most, Mr. Speaker, before they become ill, by increasing the amount of
preventive care covered by Medicare.
There are a few specific reforms I would like to highlight. One is
the reforms we make to the AAPCC reimbursement formula. That reform,
very, very important to cost-effective States like Minnesota that have
historically delivered health care in a cost effective way. What we do
by changing the reimbursement formula is expand choices for seniors in
States like Minnesota, those that have been efficient in their costs
and in their quality. This is a major reform, Mr. Speaker, in the
Medicare managed care reimbursement formula. It will mean more equity
for States like Minnesota and more health care options for Medicare
beneficiaries in our State and others like ours.
Incorporating a bill that I introduced earlier this year, this
legislation before us today will establish a payment floor and will
blend the formula to bring fairness and equity to beneficiaries living
in rural and efficient provider States like Minnesota.
The bill also includes an important new study of ways to provide
health care to seniors to let them stay in their homes longer, to let
them live independently longer by extending for 2 years the community
nursing organization demonstration project. I think, Mr. Speaker, this
reform will prove to be one of the most important reforms ever in
Medicare. These very important community nursing organizations allow
seniors to stay in their homes, to make their choice of staying in
their homes as long as possible and at the same time saving Medicare
dollars. This CNO, community nursing organization demonstration
project, is vital to seniors in Minnesota and all over the country who
have enrolled in this project.
I am also pleased that this bill includes a provision to help certain
hospitals that have merged with nursing homes meet necessary
requirements to maintain appropriate geographical classification. This
means a great deal to a hospital in Hutchinson, Minnesota. I am glad we
were able to make this necessary change in the bill.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I thank the conferees for making all the
necessary changes to Medicare to save this absolutely vital system for
the seniors of our country.
From extending the life of the Medicare trust fund, to ensuring
quality care as a major tenet of the centers of excellence program, I
commend the conferees for their hard work on behalf of current and
future Medicare beneficiaries.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this important legislation to
preserve and protect Medicare and urge all my colleagues to support it
as well and to continue working in a bipartisan, pragmatic way for the
betterment of America.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule, and I
want to stress that it is not because of the underlying bill.
I feel very strongly that this spending bill does include a major
program to cover uninsured children in this country and I am pleased
with the fact that we have managed, I believe as Democrats, and
particularly the President, in pushing the Republicans towards
inclusion of a $24 billion package that will insure the majority of the
Nation's uninsured children.
{time} 1100
But it is for that very reason, because this bill is so important,
that I think it is very unfair and wrong to present this bill at this
time without having the opportunity to review the specifics of the
measure. The bill, as my colleagues can see, is about a foot thick. I
understand it was filed at around 3 o'clock in the morning. I have not
had the opportunity to review all of the provisions in the bill. We did
receive a summary of the bill this morning, but I think it is fair to
say that a summary is not adequate.
Let me just give my colleagues an example on the kids' health
initiative, which is such an important initiative and which I support
wholeheartedly, but there are a number of things that we still do not
know.
For example, many of us, including myself, on our Democratic Health
Care Task Force were concerned about the benefits package. We knew we
wanted to have the $24 billion, and we wanted to insure the majority of
the kids. But we were concerned about whether the benefits package
would be adequate, and language was put in and was negotiated in the
last 24 hours on that, which I hope provides an adequate benefits
package, but without reviewing the specifics of the bill myself and my
other colleagues, we will not know whether it is completely adequate.
Similarly, we were concerned to make sure that the money was going to
be spent so that States had to actually insure kids and not whittle it
away or use it for other purposes. I understand in the summary we
received this morning that 15 percent of the funds can be used for
purposes other than to insure kids. Well, I would like to know the
details of that and how specifically that 15 percent is set aside. We
do not know that, and until we analyze it we will not know it.
And in addition to that, again on the kids' health care initiative,
we were concerned, many of us on the Democratic side, to make sure that
States had to keep providing the same level of funds, if not more
funds, than they had in the past for kids' health care. We wanted to
make sure the maintenance of effort, if my colleagues will, was in
there. And we are not actually clear about the language for that as
well.
So I want to join my colleague, the ranking member of the Committee
on Rules, in saying, ``Yes, we think this is a good bill, and we
probably will vote for it, but it's not fair not to have the details,
and there is no reason why we couldn't wait in this Congress another 24
hours so that everyone, including our staff, had the opportunity to
review the details in something that is so important to this Congress
and to the American people.''
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this
time to me.
This is not just an esoteric procedural debate. I was insulted when
the gentleman on the other said, ``Well, so what if we're bringing up
this bill delivered, one copy, to the Democratic side at 3:30 in the
morning. They wouldn't have read it any way.'' Well, I was here a few
years ago, and I read the catastrophic care bill before it came to the
floor of the House. I was one of the few Democrats to vote against it,
and a whole heck of a lot of people had to change their votes a year
later because they cast their vote for a bad bill.
This bill is a bad bill. I will not yield to the gentleman. This bill
is a bad bill. But we are not going to be allowed time to read it. If
we split this up among the 200 or so Democrats here, we would have a
hard time getting through it in the time allotted.
We are going to vote on this bill within the next three hours. Do my
colleagues know why? Because it is
[[Page H6307]]
going to make prime time news. That is why we are going to vote on it.
This is an Alice in Wonderland budget process. We are going to get to
the balanced budget by first increasing the deficit with retroactive
tax cuts. It is slanted very much toward the wealthy people and the
largest corporations in America. Then maybe later, we have heard this
before, these cuts will go in place.
Do my colleagues know what the cuts are? A one-third cut in Social
Security Administration. If someone has to wait 3 months now to get
their claim processed, under this bill they will be waiting 6 months, 9
months or a year to get their claim processed. A 20 percent cut in
veterans and cuts in other vital programs.
This is not a good path to the balanced budget. In fact, it is no
path whatsoever.
This is stranger and stranger. We have stepped through the looking
glass, it is getting more and more bizarre. This is no kind of a
legislative process. No one on the floor can come to the floor today
and say they have read this bill, they understand it and they are
voting for it in good faith. That would be a lie.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Radanovich].
Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, what a difference 4 years makes. It was
a mere 4 years ago that a Democratic Congress, led by a Democratic
President, passed the largest tax increase in American history. Today a
Republican Congress will pass a budget that will be balanced by the
year 2002. This Republican-led balanced budget will provide tax relief
for families. It provides $24 billion to States for children's health,
it provides $3 billion for welfare to work programs, and it saves
Medicare for 10 years.
Yes, what a difference 4 years makes.
Tomorrow a Republican Congress will pass the first tax relief package
for working Americans in 16 years. This Republican-led package provides
$94 billion in tax relief over the next 5 years. It allows for a $500
per child tax credit, reduces the top rate of capital gains from 28 to
20 percent, and, most importantly, it provides immediate tax relief for
the death tax for family farmers.
Mr. Chairman, this budget and this tax relief package is good for
America. I am proud to join in support of this monumental agreement and
support the rule and passage of this bill.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to reiterate that my argument is not against
the spending bill, it is against the process, just asking that Members
have enough time to read the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island
[Mr. Kennedy].
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], the ranking member, for yielding me this
time, and I can tell my colleagues, having been chairman of the
Committee on Rules in my State legislature in Rhode Island, I know
martial law when I see it, I know a bad rule when I see it, and this is
a terrible rule. When we consider the monumental bill that we have
before us, that does so many huge things to this country, to think that
we are going to have a debate about it for less than an hour and a half
to me is just outrageous.
First of all, think about this budget. This budget is not going to be
balanced when we consider that we are going to front-load the tax cuts
to the tune of $95 billion, and we are going to call on the spending
cuts to be done in future congresses, spending cuts like the former
gentleman from Oregon mentioned, up to one-third of the Social Security
Administration spending cuts.
I can tell my colleagues now this Congress is not going to keep the
promise to cut Social Security administrative costs by 23 percent.
Veterans benefits and services; it is going to cut 19 percent. Justice
Department; it is going to be cut 18 percent.
Now just tell me that the next Congress is going to make these cuts?
I can guarantee that the tax cuts are not going to be tampered with.
The tax cuts are going to be locked in, and we are not going to make
the necessary cuts on the spending side because this Congress, because
it will be listening to the people, will not make those cuts.
This is bad for Medicare. It cuts $115 billion out of Medicare.
Remember, we shut the Government down 2 years ago because of cuts that
rivaled this for Medicare, yet no one is going to think twice about
cutting $115 billion out of Medicare. Furthermore, they put 190,000
senior citizens in medical savings accounts. Anybody who knows this
knows this is the beginning of the end of Medicare because they are
going to take the healthiest and wealthiest of our senior citizens and
they are going to take them out of the Medicare system, thereby ruining
the system because all they are going to leave are the people who
cannot pay and who are sick.
So they are going to terrorize the Medicare System by not only
cutting $115 billion, but they are going to, through this Medicare
select and privatization of Medicare, lead to its eventual undoing.
Remember the Speaker's dying on the vine that he attributed to
Medicare? This is the beginning of it right now, and this is going to
be in the bill that everyone is going to vote for this afternoon.
And, finally, this is bad not only for the budget, as I talked about,
because it front-loads the taxes and does not allow for spending cuts
to be made until future congresses, bad for Medicare, but it is also
bad for fairness. Do my colleagues realize that the top 5 percent of
the income earners in this country are going to get four times; let me
repeat this, the top 5 percent get four times what the bottom 60
percent get in this tax bill. Undisputed, my colleagues cannot deny me
on that. That is fact. Get it, people? Top 5 percent in this country
get 60 percent of the benefits, four times what the bottom 60 percent
get. That is fact.
So whatever people talk about this being a fair bill is bogus. This
is not a fair bill. And, my colleagues, know what? Finally this, the
Republican side, and I might add many of my colleagues on the
Democratic side, will not even bring out the income distribution
charts. They will not want to tell us where this deal, so to speak,
really who it benefits. The reason is because we are not going to have
enough time on the floor today to debate this. What we are considering
right now is called a martial law. What that means is we better be
thankful we even have a right to vote.
Mr. Speaker, this is a dictatorship that what we are talking about
here under martial law. It says, ``OK, read the newspaper, everybody,
because you're not going to be able to read the agreement, because it's
not going to be available to the Members of this Congress.'' I want to
know as a Member of Rhode Island's delegation whether I am going to be
able to go home and ask my constituents what they feel about this
agreement when they know what is in this agreement. They do not know
what is in this agreement.
I say to my colleagues today they do not know what is in this
agreement, they do not know how this is going to gut Medicare, they do
not know this is going to destroy veterans and the like, and I can tell
my colleagues they are leaving it to future congresses to do the dirty
work. That is what this budget agreement is all about, it is promises
that are not going to be kept in future congresses.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am compelled to yield myself 1 minute to
point out to the gentleman from Rhode Island that rules of the House
require that he address his comments either to the Chair or the House,
not to the gallery; and, No. 2, his argument that the top 4 percent
gets 60 percent of the benefits, or whatever, only is true if we use
phony numbers to define who is wealthy; and, No. 3, I am curious to
know when he referred to the former member from Oregon, the former
gentleman from Oregon, whether it was formerly a gentleman or formerly
from Oregon.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from New York [Mr. Solomon] the chairman of the Committee on Rules.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I was upstairs. We were just having a
Committee on Rules meeting, and we bring down the rule which will bring
this magnificent piece of legislation to the floor. But I just am
really taken aback by some of the comments by the last 2 speakers on
the Democrat side of the
[[Page H6308]]
aisle, and I would just point to the signers of this conference, and
one of those is a gentleman by the name of Charles Rangel from New
York.
Mr. Speaker, if this bill in any way, either this bill or the tax
bill to follow it tomorrow, did any of the things that the gentleman
from Massachusetts or the gentleman from Oregon said it did, I can tell
my colleagues that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel], who has
stood up for the indigent and poor of this country, and I will yield to
my colleague when I am done perhaps, Charles Rangel would never, never
in a million years, sign this conference report.
Let me just say that the gentleman protests that he has not had a
chance to look at the bill. This bill here was in front of the
Committee on Rules at 3:14 and a half this morning down in room 152. It
was given to the minority in the Committee on the Budget much earlier
than that so that there have been 15 hours for people to sit down and
talk to; I am talking about people on that side of the aisle, talk to
distinguished Members from their party that have signed this conference
report and know everything that is in it. Those members are people like
the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt], the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Bonior] of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, and
I will yield when I am finished, the gentleman from California [Mr.
Fazio], the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] from the more
conservative wing of the Democratic Party, and my colleagues know I can
just go on, and on, and on: The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell],
who would never ever sign a bill, a conference report, as described by
the previous two Democratic speakers. And as my colleagues know, they
can look on through these signatures: The gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
Kildee], who is a very liberal member of the Democratic Party, but one
of the most respected Members because he is very sincere in his
beliefs.
{time} 1115
Incidentally, he has two great sons that serve in the military, in an
honorable career in our military. There is the gentleman from New
Jersey [Mr. Payne]. Again, we can go on and on. There is the gentleman
from Illinois [Mr. Lane Evans], a noted liberal from Illinois; the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Levin].
My point is this, Mr. Speaker: Everyone has to compromise. I have
offered legislation on this floor that would have balanced the budget
in 1 year, not 2, 3, 4, 5 or 7. I can remember getting only 16 votes
for it. I can remember another time bringing a budget to the floor when
my conservative group only got 75 votes, and then 99 votes.
But this is truly a bipartisan effort from liberals, from
conservatives. We ought to be here working together on this
legislation. We should not be here trying to tear each other apart on
it. I think this matter is going to pass overwhelmingly with
bipartisan, overwhelming support on the Democratic side, as well as
almost every, if not every, Republican in this House. That is the way
it should be.
Ronald Reagan once said to me that we cannot stick to our principles
solely, because there is a House of Representatives, there is a Senate,
and there is a White House. We all have to give a little. I think
everybody has given a little.
I am going to give credit to the President of the United States of
America, because he has given, too, as we Republicans have, to put
together what is truly a great program that is going to mean that the
future of my children and my grandchildren and all of the Members' are
going to have a future in this country, and they are going to have a
life as good as we have had when we were growing up. That is what we
are here to do.
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, the point I am trying to
make is this is a monumental agreement. The gentleman would agree with
me on that?
Mr. SOLOMON. Yes, it is.
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. It effects $95 billion in tax cuts,
395,000 seniors going into Medicare Select, MSA's, all the cuts that
are going to ensue, 15 percent in goals cuts, veterans, Social Security
Administration, all that is to come down the road.
All I am saying to the gentleman is under martial law, we have an
hour and a half to debate that. The gentleman points out, rightfully
so, that there are a lot of good Members on my side of the aisle who
signed onto this. But that does not excuse the fact that we will not
have adequate time to debate something that I might add, if the
gentleman would yield further for a second, that I might add would
consume months of debate in future Congresses. The decision we are
going to make today and tomorrow is going to impact enormously on the
future of this country. Yet we have an hour and a half to decide
something so huge.
Yet we are going to dilly-dally and spend months and months debating
appropriations bills in future Congresses over just finite parts of
this budget deal in the future.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I just have to reclaim my time to say to
the gentleman, it is not an hour and a half. Under normal rules of the
House we are having 1\1/2\ hours of debate, but we are having an extra
hour on the rule we are bringing up; we will have an extra hour, so the
gentleman is talking about 3\1/2\ hours of time.
All of the Members on both sides of the aisle have been briefed. I
have sat through 17 hours of briefing on what is in this legislation.
The White House has done the same thing with Members on the Democratic
side of the aisle. So we have had ample time to discuss what is in this
legislation.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I would simply like to respond to my good friend and neighbor, the
gentleman from Rhode Island, that if we look at this debate that we are
going to be having on this issue, it is really the culmination of what
for many of us has been a decade or a decade and a half of debate on
these issues.
My friend is relatively new to this body, and I think that he clearly
should spend a lot of time discussing and looking at these questions.
But the fact of the matter is, 90 minutes is not going to be the full
debate time for this question.
In fact, we just had testimony upstairs, and let me just say that if
we look at the fact that we 12 years ago introduced a resolution
calling for the establishment of medical savings accounts, which my
friend just raised, we have been debating that issue for well over 10
years.
So this really is the culmination of a very great, great
accomplishment that has been done in a bipartisan way, and that is why
I am strongly supportive of this rule.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know if my chairman was on the floor when I
spoke, and I know he was not, he was attending to his duties, but this
debate this morning right now is not about the spending bill. It is
about the process. I just feel, and he said, this bill was dropped at
my doorstep at 3:15 this morning. It is not enough time, not only for
me but for the rest of the Members. To quote one of his favorite men in
public office, Ronald Reagan, he said, ``Trust, but verify.'' All I
want to do is verify.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Doggett].
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, today Speaker Gingrich seeks our approval
of a resolution on a subject that this Republican Congress has quite
obviously developed considerable expertise in. That subject is
ignorance. Normally ignorance is demonstrated here in this House in
ignoring the needs of the ordinary hard-working American family. Today
that ignorance is demonstrated in a much more obvious way.
We know that an agreement was put together in the dead of night and
presented to a committee, that copies of the bill are not even out
here, that no one has seen this bill. Perhaps that is a bit of an
overstatement. We have seen the bill. This is it. If Members have a
photographic memory, perhaps they can see it right now. It is about a
foot high. It weighs several pounds. It has what the Washington Post
and the
[[Page H6309]]
Washington Times, two papers of very differing views, both describe as
significant increases in spending, in social spending. In fact, this
bill represents billions, if not trillions, of dollars in spending that
the American taxpayer will be asked to finance.
Mr. Speaker, I would submit that the Members on the Republican side
who are speaking in favor of this martial law rule do not have the
slightest idea what is in most of this several pounds, and that indeed
few Members of this Congress, if any, know what is in that bill in
terms of spending hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars of the
American taxpayers' money.
No, the ignorance resolution they ask us to approve this morning is
based on that fundamental principle that got us into some of this mess
in the first place; that is, that we should vote first and read later.
I am for the principle of a balanced budget, just do not confuse me
with the details. I do not want to take the pep out of their pep rally,
but those of us who tried to get a meaningful enforcement provision on
this budget, both in the Committee on the Budget and on the floor of
this Congress, do not want a budget that is balanced for a millisecond.
We do not want to approve hundreds of billions of dollars of new
spending without knowing what it is going to do and without actually
reading the bill. Who knows what provisions for special interests are
buried in these pounds of new spending?
We need the opportunity, not just for this House but for the American
people, to have an opportunity to see what is in this bill, to
understand it. If it is that great, it can stand the test of time, not
a matter of a few minutes.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Minnesota [Mr. Minge].
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member of the Committee
on Rules for yielding time to me, and I would address my comments to my
colleagues and to the Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, we certainly, as many speakers have already said this
morning, have seen a historic agreement reached. It certainly is
uncommon for us to see a major controversial piece of legislation
drawing support from the White House, from the Republican leadership in
both the House and Senate, and from most of the Democratic leadership
in the House and Senate. It is a massive bill.
This morning we have been treated to repeated demonstrations of the
size of the bill and the awkwardness of even trying to work one's way
through it. I think it is fairly safe to say that nobody in this body
will have a chance to review this bill in detail before it is voted on.
It has large provisions which most of us are familiar with and most
of us probably agree with. It has small provisions that only a few of
us know about because they affect our areas. I would like to just
mention one of them which I think is of significance to American
agriculture, to point out that this is typical of small things that
find their way into big bills.
We have labored in American agriculture with a very restrictive
ruling from the Internal Revenue Service that prohibited farmers from
taking advantage of deferred payment contracts. It is because of the
alternative minimum tax. This legislation corrects that.
Many say the devil is in the details. If this is the type of detail,
I think we have had an exorcist that has taken the devil out. But the
question is, how many other details are there that we have not had a
chance to examine, and do we need to give that exorcist more time?
On a larger scale, I would like to say in concluding that I think
that there are some very significant omissions in this legislation:
Social Security. We are borrowing this year $79 billion to balance
the budget with Social Security. By the year 2002, it will be over $110
billion.
Medicare. We have a temporary fix to Medicare. We do not have a long-
term fix.
Finally, enforcement. Many of us on both sides of the aisle have
struggled for enforcement provisions in this legislation. We have been
rebuffed. I think it is absolutely critical that we move ahead with
enforcement provisions before this session of Congress ends.
I anticipate supporting this legislation, but I am a reluctant
supporter. I urge that we focus on these deficiencies.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, I would point out that unlike 1984 when Speaker Wright
brought a $1.3 trillion budget to the floor with 1 hour's notice, not
even letting the Committee on Rules see it, everybody in America could
have read this. The full text of this budget is on the Internet,
Speakernews.house.gov. Speakernews is one word. The Members can do it
on the Democratic side even as we speak.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, this is the legislation that we received
this morning. On principle, nobody in this House should vote for
legislation which he does not understand, has not seen, and contains
hundreds and hundreds of pages with many provisions that we know
nothing about.
But Mr. Speaker, we do know some of the aspects that we are going to
be asked to vote on. We do know that in a time when millions of elderly
people are unable to pay for their prescription drugs, when they are
paying more and more for private insurance to cover what Medicare does
not cover, we do know that we are going to be asked to cut Medicare by
$115 billion. That is wrong. We also know there are significant cuts in
the Social Security Administration and in veterans programs. That is
wrong.
Mr. Speaker, in order to pay for the cuts in Medicare, in the Social
Security Administration, and in veterans programs, what the Congress is
proposing is to provide huge tax breaks for the wealthiest people in
this country, unfortunately; precisely the people who do not need it.
The wealthiest 5 percent of Americans will receive almost half of the
tax cuts. The upper 20 percent will receive over 70 percent of the
benefits. The upper 1 percent, when this plan is full-blown, the upper
1 percent will receive more benefits from this package than the bottom
80 percent.
So the people who really need the help are not getting the help. The
people who do not need the help are getting more help than they are
entitled to. Under this plan, the average tax cut for middle-income
families and individuals will be less than $200. The wealthiest 1
percent, however, will receive over $16,000 in tax breaks.
{time} 1130
As the New York Times said today in an editorial, and I quote:
Even after last minute horse trading around the edges, the
deal remains unfairly tilted in favor of the better off
citizens of society. It drills scores of new loopholes into
the tax code, mostly for the benefit of very wealthy families
at the cost of opening up large deficits early next century
conveniently beyond the 10-year period that the deal tracks.
In other words, what is going to happen is, 10 years from now, when
we have all of these loopholes for the wealthy and for large
corporations, we are going to be back here again with another huge
deficit and we are going to have Members here saying, we have got to
cut more into Medicare, more into Social Security, more into veterans
programs, more into housing. So my friends, before we pass a budget
like this, first of all, have the courage to look at it and, second of
all, let us not balance the budget on the backs of the weak and the
vulnerable in order to give huge tax breaks to the wealthy.
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman saying
that the top 5 percent get four times the tax cut as the bottom 60
percent?
Mr. SANDERS. Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Smith].
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, there are some Members that would
like to put off a decision on balancing the budget and having tax cuts.
There are some Members that would hope that we could discuss this
enough that they might discourage the President from going along with
this tax cut and balanced budget for the American people. Regarding the
questions whether
[[Page H6310]]
we have had time to review this legislation, we never have enough time
for each Member to totally understand the text of this legislation
without the help of specialists. Look at Medicare, which is the large
portion of this bill.
It is essentially the same Medicare proposal that was offered by the
Republicans over 2 years ago. It is the same Medicare bill that was
demagogued last year in the election. Obviously Members have had 2
years to review that proposal. If we want to look at the other
provisions of this bill, many are similar and we have talked about them
since we voted on similar change in 1995.
This legislation, this agreement has been on the table since last
April in terms of what Republicans and Democrats working together
actually signed off on a detailed agreement. We are doing what the
American people want us to do. That is balancing the budget and cutting
taxes. There is a lot more to do but this is a good start.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Ohio [Ms. Kaptur].
(Ms. KAPTUR asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I am not going to vote
for this bill because I cannot even find the bill. I went down to the
Clerk's office just now because I was told that is where the only copy
of the bill was. In fact, I was told that it was filed at the
Government Printing Office at 4:15 this morning. So then we call over
to the Committee on Ways and Means. I said, I will run over to the
Committee on Ways and Means and get the bill. I call over to the
Committee on Ways and Means, and they said, we have only got the
sections that deal with our committee. We have got Social Security, we
have got Medicare, we have got Medicaid.
I said, let us take a look and see if it is up in the Committee on
Rules. They said, no, the Committee on Rules does not have the bill.
Maybe there is one copy down on the floor, maybe the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], maybe the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Solomon] have that copy.
Then I said, well, let us go to the web site. So we went to
Thomas.loc.gov. Guess what? The bill is not on the web site. I am not
elected by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon]. I am not elected
by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley]. I am elected by the
people of the Ninth Congressional District of Ohio. I cannot get a
bill, and I do not want to listen to the gentleman from South Carolina
[Mr. Spratt] because he did not elect me. The people back in Ohio
elected me.
To bring this kind of a bill to the floor today and tomorrow, what is
the rush? Are we afraid the American people might actually know what is
in this bill and would not want us to vote on this until September when
we have had a chance to study the bill? What is the rush? I can see a
fast ball when it comes.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Dreier], my colleague on the Committee on Rules.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me the time.
I would like to give this to my colleagues: Speakernews..House.gov.
The World Wide Web has it. It is there. It has been there since early
this morning. Obviously my friend did not move to the appropriate site.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I would love to know why the Clerk's office
did not know what site it was at?
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, because I had not stood here yet to announce
it: Speakernews.House.gov. That is maybe why the Clerk did not know it
yet. The fact is, it is there. It can be found. At 3:14 this morning my
very dear friend from Glens Falls pulled another all-nighter. He went
right to the office of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley]
and delivered this thing.
It was delivered at 3:14 this morning. The gentleman from New York
[Mr. Solomon] wanted to take it to the house of the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], but his better judgment told him to simply
take it to the office at 3:14 in the morning. This is in fact a very
good package. We should move ahead with it as quickly as possible.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.
Mr. Speaker, despite what we heard at the microphone from my very
dear friend, if one calls up the Speaker's line, you will get a
summary. This bill is not in print anywhere except the copies that I
have and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] has. It will not
even be in the Congressional Record until tomorrow. We are talking
about the bill itself.
If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to
the rule which would make certain that Members will have no less than
10 hours to read the bills before the House begins to consider them. I
believe that is only fair for major bills such as these.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the amendment to which I
referred:
At the end of the resolution add the following:
``Sec. 2. The waiver prescribed in the first section of
this resolution shall not apply to a resolution providing for
consideration of any measure unless the measure has been
available to Members for at least 10 hours before the
consideration of such resolution.''
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me point out that the White House, the conferees have read every
word, every summary, every piece of it. And every bill that comes
through here we have to trust the folks on the committee or on the
conference report to give us the best advice. They have done that. We
have got some of the most distinguished Democrats in this House who
have signed onto this bill. They know what is in it. We have been
debating some of these issues for 3 and 4 years. This is a specious
argument to try and delay the action on a very good bill. Most of the
arguments against the process have come from the most liberal Members
who do not like the bill. I think that is curious.
Let me say, this is a rule that we have used in the past under
Democrats and Republicans. It is a rule that should be supported as
well as the bills.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. Gibbons]. The question is on ordering
the previous question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground 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 clause 5 of rule XV, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes
the minimum time for electronic voting if ordered on the question of
adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 226,
nays 201, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 341]
YEAS--226
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Foley
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
[[Page H6311]]
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Redmond
Regula
Riggs
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Traficant
Upton
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (FL)
NAYS--201
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Hooley
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Turner
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--7
Diaz-Balart
Foglietta
Forbes
Gonzalez
Lazio
Schiff
Young (AK)
{time} 1156
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois, Ms. SLAUGHTER, and Messrs. BOSWELL, JOHN,
and GUTIERREZ changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. ROYCE changed his 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. Gibbons). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-- yeas 237,
nays 187, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 342]
YEAS--237
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boswell
Brady
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dooley
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Foley
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manton
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Pascrell
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Redmond
Regula
Riggs
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Torres
Traficant
Upton
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (FL)
NAYS--187
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Boyd
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Christensen
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Ensign
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Goode
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Hoyer
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Taylor (MS)
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--10
Foglietta
Forbes
Gonzalez
Graham
Lazio
Ortiz
Riley
Schiff
Shaw
Young (AK)
[[Page H6312]]
{time} 1205
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid upon the table.
____________________