[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.

                          ____________________