[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 84 (Wednesday, June 28, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H5304-H5318]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4680, MEDICARE RX 2000 ACT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Goss) for 1 hour.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield, in
the spirit of comity and bipartisanship, which is customary in this
Chamber, the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Moakley), my friend; 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 on this matter only.
Mr. Speaker, this is an appropriate structured rule that ensures a
rigorous debate on how best to provide our Nation's seniors with
prescription drug coverage, a matter of great concern to them. The rule
provides 2 hours of general debate divided equally between the minority
and the majority of two committees of jurisdictions, the Committee on
Ways and Means and the Committee on Commerce.
The rule provides that the amendment recommended by the Committee on
Ways and Means now printed in the bill, modified by the one printed in
the Committee on Rules report, shall be considered as adopted.
The rule also provides that, at any time on or before this Friday, it
shall be in order for the House to entertain motions to suspend the
rules with respect to two bills only. Mr. Speaker, I will repeat, it
shall be in order for the House to entertain motions to suspend the
rules with respect to two bills only, H.R. 3240 and H. Res. 535.
Finally, the rule provides a motion to recommit with or without
instructions. This is a minority right that has become standard in
every bill under the Republican majority.
Today is another historic day for our Nation's seniors. Three years
ago, the Medicare program was speeding toward bankruptcy, many will
recall. While the partisans and the naysayers said it could not be done
to fix it, a Republican-led Congress appropriately stepped in and saved
Medicare through sound structural reform of that program. Had we not
acted responsibly, then our seniors would not even have access to
hospitals or doctors let alone the services necessary to modernize the
program. We met that challenge head on. We met it successfully.
Today we take the logical next step to provide every senior with the
opportunity of a safe and secure prescription drug benefit. This is
very good news. As in 1995 and in 1997, we will hear a lot of partisan
vitriol and rhetoric today, probably see even a little more theater of
the type we have already seen this morning, what The Washington Post
has labeled as ``Mediscare.'' We will hear poll-tested attack words
like ``vouchers'' and ``privatize'' and maybe even words like ``risky
scheme.''
To be sure, this is an election year and nothing plays better than
some good old-fashioned scare tactics aimed at the most vulnerable
among us, our Nation's seniors, who we are here to serve, not walk out
on.
While we should expect such attacks, we cannot let them go
unanswered. The bipartisan plan crafted by the gentleman from
California (Mr. Thomas) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson)
will provide a sound drug benefit while also recognizes the weakness of
the current Medicare bureaucracy. It is a new universal benefit
[[Page H5305]]
for all seniors that reflects the advances of our modern health care
delivery system, not the outdated top-down bureaucracy of the old
system.
Unlike the President's plan, the bipartisan program we bring forward
today promotes individual choice, choice so that our seniors can tailor
the benefit to meet their own needs. Members of Congress currently
enjoy a menu of choices when they choose their health care. We think it
only appropriate that we extend that same privilege to our seniors.
We also think it is important to recognize that two-thirds of our
seniors already have drug coverage, and we do not want to force any of
them to abandon what they already have. We let them keep their coverage
if they like it and focus most of our attention on the one-third who
currently lack coverage.
Every senior has a right to complain about the rising cost of
prescription drugs, this one included. Under the bipartisan plan, drug
costs for the average senior will be cut by 25 percent, more than
double the savings envisioned under the Clinton plan. This according to
the independent Congressional Budget Office. We do not ignore those
Americans with the highest drug costs.
The bipartisan plan delivers a strong stop-loss program in 2003 that
will cap the cost of drugs for every senior. The Democrat plan does not
offer this protection until the year 2006, 3 years later, conveniently
escaping the 5-year budget window, and calling into question the
sincerity of their commitment to this goal and their fiscal rationales.
Most importantly, the bipartisan plan provides unprecedented
protections for our most needy seniors. We pay the full premium for any
senior up to 135 percent of poverty with partial subsidies for those up
to 150 percent. Poor seniors will no longer have to choose between
paying their rent and getting needed prescription drugs.
While H.R. 4780 is not a perfect plan, it does provide a workable
benefit and a meaningful and lasting reform to our Medicare program. It
does so without busting the budget and without endangering the safety
of the security of the overall medical program, Medicare, which we care
about and need to preserve and make strong.
I am hopeful that Members will study the details, ignore the
demagoguery, the dilatory tactics which we have already seen an
abundance of, and support this historic reform to improve the quality
of life of seniors across America.
This rule will ensure a vigorous debate. That is the purpose of the
rule. I urge its adoption.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), my dear friend, for
yielding me the customary half hour.
Mr. Speaker, if people say they have not had much time to look at the
bill, it is probably because we voted it out of the Committee on Rules
at 2:30 this morning, and not too many people were here in the Chamber
at the time.
Mr. Speaker, American seniors are having a very hard time today, and
the House could really do something about it. Today we could have
passed a Democratic bill to make sure that every single senior citizen
gets help with their expensive prescription drugs and never again has
to make the terrible choice between putting food on the table or
medicine in their cabinet.
But my Republican colleagues decided against legitimate help for
seniors. Instead, they decided to offer a bill to pour billions of
dollars into the coffers of insurance companies and drug companies on
the off chance that these companies will offer people some kind, any
kind of drug benefit. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the Republican drug bill
does more for insurance companies and the Grand Old Party than it does
for grandparents.
Mr. Speaker, people with incomes over $12,600 get no direct help
whatsoever from this Republican bill. But, Mr. Speaker, we have a
chance to do something different. We have a Democratic prescription
drug bill that would give every single senior American affordable,
dispensable prescription drug coverage. It is ready right now. But the
Republicans would not allow that amendment to be heard.
Mr. Speaker, seniors need our help. American senior citizens were
promised Social Security and health care. They were promised dignity.
They took their country at its word. I believe we should keep that word
and shore up their health care with a real prescription drug bill.
Mr. Speaker, right now, the elderly account for one-third of the drug
spending in this country. They spend an average of $1,100 each year.
Let me repeat that, Mr. Speaker. The average senior citizen spends
$1,100 each year on his or her medicine. But instead of us coming to
their rescue, this rule makes in order a Republican drug bill that
sounds great, but just does nothing to make seniors lives easier.
Now, Monday's New York Times, this is not my statement, this is not
the Democratic statement, this is the editorial in Monday's New York
Times, described the Republican bill as guaranteeing the elderly
nothing but undefined policy of uncertain costs. That is a wonderful
thing for seniors to look forward to.
Mr. Speaker, my Republican colleagues may cite respect for the Budget
Act as an excuse not to help seniors with their prescription drugs, but
let me tell my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, my Republican colleagues waived
the Budget Act against eight appropriation bills, two emergency
supplementals, and the Bankruptcy Reform Act in this very Congress
alone.
{time} 1200
The Republicans were willing to also waive the budget act for the
minimum wage bill in order to accommodate tax cuts for the very rich.
But, Mr. Speaker, they will not touch the budget act for senior
citizens, even though we learned yesterday that the budget surplus will
be twice as large as we originally anticipated.
Mr. Speaker, seniors should get their prescription drugs from the
same place they get their prescriptions, Medicare, no matter where they
live, no matter how sick they are. The Democrats have a bill that will
just do that. So I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of
the Committee on Rules, who will speak to the question of doing the
Nation's business on behalf of affordable prescription drugs for our
seniors.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this very fair
and balanced rule which will allow the opportunity for each side to
come forward with its proposals.
Mr. Speaker, each of us knows how important Medicare is to the
American people, and not just to our Nation's senior citizens. Health
care is obviously a key quality of life issue for seniors, so we are
deeply concerned that parents, grandparents, and our older friends are,
in fact, cared for and assured a strong and long and great quality of
life.
Winston Churchill said that democracy is the worst form of
government, except for all the rest. Similarly, the health care system
that we have here in the United States is the worst, except for all the
rest. And Medicare has clearly got to be included in that. Make no
mistake, as I said, we have the best health care system in the world,
but it is not perfect.
Medicare itself has clearly helped improve the quality of life for
seniors for 3 decades now. The biggest mistake we can make is to try to
look at a 3-decade-old program, which Medicare is, and freeze it in
time. Here we are in a new millennium, and it is obvious that changes
need to be made. We need to have a Medicare system which is going to
focus on how it is that we can improve access and affordability of
quality health care for our Nation's seniors.
Clearly, prescription drugs and the availability of those
prescription drugs is very high on the priority list. We want to make
sure that we get the best quality and the most affordable prescription
drugs and that they are available to the American people. We know that
those drugs save lives. We know that we, clearly, as a Nation, have an
industry which is on the cutting edge at developing so many of these
new drugs. The biotechnology industry. We have just in the last few
days had this
[[Page H5306]]
very historic development in genome research.
I believe that we have now a wonderful opportunity to ensure that we
get those quality drugs through this plan that we have put forward for
our seniors. We are committed to ensuring that every American senior
has the opportunity to have affordable and effective prescription drug
programs to deal with this under the Medicare plan.
Frankly, both sides share that priority. I know the Democrats like to
believe that they have a corner on this, but they do not. We have
stepped forward, and we have been working hard with what is a very,
very fair plan.
Our plan, I am happy to say, accomplishes this goal as part of a very
fiscally responsible program. And we believe, as Republicans, that we
can do much better than a one-size-fits-all plan, which is what my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle are proposing. Our plan
clearly should enjoy strong bipartisan support. And I predict that, at
the end of the day, when we do have this vote, we will have the support
of both Democrats and Republicans on this issue.
Now, let me take just a moment, Mr. Speaker, if I may, to talk about
the rule itself and how we got to where we are. Many people are talking
about the fact that we met in the middle of the night. And yes, it is
true that it was 3:31 this morning when the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Sessions) and I were here and filed this rule. The fact of the matter
is, it does, as I said, give an opportunity for the Republicans to come
forward with a Republican plan and the Democrats to come forward with
their plan.
Now, that is not something that would have existed when the Democrats
were in the majority. And the reason I say that is that time and time
again the minority, Republicans at that point, were not offered the
chance to propose their alternative. Yet we, when we took the majority
in 1994, having served for four long decades in the minority, said that
we wanted to guarantee minority rights, and we made that change, Mr.
Speaker. And the change is one which allows the Democrats the chance to
come forward with their minority proposal. We made that change.
We guarantee the minority that right. Now, they will scream that they
should have two bites of the apple while we, as Republicans, have one
bite of the apple. That seems to me to be unfair to the majority. So we
have a proposal which says let us look at their plan, let us look at
our plan, and then have a vote. And that is exactly what this will
consist of.
So it is a fair and balanced rule. It allows everyone the opportunity
to look at the two choices and then have a vote. And I hope very much
that my colleagues will support the rule and at the end of the day
support this very fair bill.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
so that, before my chairman leaves, I can read him something from the
Washington Post this morning.
In the editorial page it says: ``The legislation was hastily
assembled and in our judgment wouldn't work. Not well, anyway. But the
bill will achieve its principal purpose, which is to provide
Republicans with cover, a basis for saying in the fall campaign that
they are, too, for drug benefits, just not the kind the Democrats
propose.''
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr.
Kennedy).
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, every time seniors have to
choose between drugs and food, they are going to remember this vote.
Every time, in the future, when seniors have to cut their pills in
order to make them last longer, they are going to remember this vote.
Every time seniors are going to have to share their medications because
they cannot afford them, they are going to remember this vote.
But I will tell my colleagues when they are really going to remember
this vote. They are going to remember this vote in the November
election, when they vote to return a Democratic majority to the House
of Representatives. Because this Republican plan is nothing more than
empty promises. And what do America's seniors get when they get empty
promises? They get empty pill jars.
That is what this prescription drug plan that the Republicans have is
all about: empty promises equaling empty pill jars.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi).
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member for
the time and for his leadership on this important issue.
Mr. Speaker, this is a very important debate today. Too bad we cannot
have the Democratic option before us so that we could have a discussion
that this issue deserves.
Since the creation of Medicare 35 years ago, the curative power of
prescription medicines has increased dramatically. What once required
surgeries and hospital care now can be treated with prescription
medicines. However, these medicines are often very expensive. Prices
for the 50 most prescribed drugs for senior citizens have been going
up, on average, at twice the rate of inflation over the past 6 years.
As these prices have soared, our Nation's elderly and disabled
populations have found it harder and harder to afford the treatments
their doctors prescribe.
As with so many of the issues that we have recently debated in this
Chamber, the debate between the Democratic and Republican prescription
drug plans comes down to a question of priorities. Democrats offer a
voluntary, affordable, guaranteed prescription drug benefit that is
available to all citizens through Medicare, the same program that has
provided reliable access to doctor and hospital care for 30 years.
But the American people will not have a chance to hear about it,
because in the dark of night the Republican majority has foisted a rule
on this House that does not give us a chance to present our option to
the American people. But America should know that we will be tireless
in our efforts to have our proposal of direct benefits prevail.
It is no wonder that the Republican's scheme shies away from
Medicare. The Republicans have always opposed it. Former Speaker
Gingrich once said that Medicare would wither on the vine because we
think people are voluntarily going to leave it. And the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Armey), in 1995, called Medicare ``a program I would have no
part of in the free world.''
Mr. Speaker, it is very important that the Democratic plan prevail;
that we have a plan that has a guaranteed defined benefit that gives
seniors the benefit of being in a purchasing group which is private. We
will work tirelessly to that end. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Michigan (Ms. Stabenow).
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I appreciate very much his leadership and that of my
colleagues that are working so hard on this issue.
I rise today to express my deep, deep disappointment that this rule
does not allow for a vote on a real solution to the high cost of
prescription drugs for older Americans. I want to share just a few
words from Connie Lisuzzo from Dearborn, Michigan, who wrote me, as
thousands of seniors and disabled have written me from Michigan,
pleading for some help so they do not have to choose between getting
their food and getting their medications.
She writes, ``I am a widow of 18 years. I am now 72 years of age. I
find prescriptions going up every day. I have no insurance to cover any
of these costs. I call around for the best price I can get. Seems that
every visit to the doctor adds one more prescription. Please help us so
we won't have to make choices between food and prescriptions.''
Unfortunately, today, Mr. Speaker, this bill does not directly help
Connie Lisuzzo and the millions of other seniors who earn above $12,525
a year, barely enough to live on, which, by the way, are the majority
of seniors in Michigan. I urge us to pass a bill that makes sense and
modernize Medicare.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Rhode Island (Mr. Weygand).
Mr. WEYGAND. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule
and against the Republican plan.
This bill that has been forced on to the floor will provide nothing
for my
[[Page H5307]]
constituents back in Rhode Island. Matter of fact, it will be more
harmful than helpful. Our Democratic colleagues and I have put together
a proposal that will be a prescription drug coverage as part of
Medicare versus part of private insurance.
That is really the clear difference between our two proposals. We
would have a reliable consistent option that would provide for choices
and be a voluntary plan. Their proposal would really put more money in
or pad the pockets of insurance companies.
Rhode Islanders already know what happens when we rely too heavily on
private insurance coverage. Over 120,000 Rhode Islanders, about 12
percent of our population, lost their health care coverage overnight
when an HMO pulled out because it was not profitable for them to stay
in our State any more. This is the same type of system that is proposed
today as part of prescription drug coverage by the Republican plan.
This will just not work.
We want to create a system that will truly be beneficial for our
seniors, but this is a system that will surely fail. Vote ``no'' on the
rule; vote ``no'' on the Republican plan.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the Democratic whip.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership has noticed that
affordable prescription medicine is a major problem. Unfortunately, all
they see is a major political problem. That is why today they have come
to the floor with a purely political response, a scheme that, in the
words of the National Senior Citizens Law Center, and I quote, says
``does nothing to address the needs of seniors for meaningful and
affordable prescription drug coverage.'' Nothing.
America would be better off if the Republican leadership spent less
time talking to their pollsters and more time listening to Dolores
Martin, a person in my district. We call her Dee. She is 70 years of
age. In April, she had two angioplasties. She does not need any
pollsters to tell her about the high cost of medicine. She spends $330
each month.
What does the Republican plan offer seniors like Dee? Well, the
chance to buy insurance she cannot afford from companies who do not
even want to sell it to her. That is what they are all about. And all
the sponsors say that the insurance companies and the HMOs will lower
their prices only if we give them enough money. Their message is: trust
the HMOs and trust the insurance companies.
{time} 1215
My God, have we not learned anything in these last few years?
Older Americans deserve better. They have earned the right to
affordable prescription medicine. And that is exactly what our plan
would provide. But, as we heard today, we are not allowed to present
our plan. We are not given an opportunity to each debate our proposal,
let alone vote on it.
At a time when older Americans desperately need affordable medicine,
the Republicans have written a prescription for disaster.
Say no to this sham. Vote ``no'' on this rule.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Wexler).
Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Speaker, this Republican bill is bad medicine.
Instead of providing prescription coverage for seniors, this bill
provides political coverage for Republicans. Premiums are 40 percent
higher than the Democratic plan. Worst of all, it puts seniors
desperate for life-saving drugs at the mercy of greedy HMOs.
Sorry Mom, one year you are covered, the next you are not.
Instead of helping seniors get well, this plan helps insurance
companies get wealthy.
Mr. Speaker, seniors deserve a second opinion by allowing a vote on
the Democratic plan which guarantees Medicare drug coverage.
Republicans are guilty of congressional malpractice. And since they
killed the Patients' Bill of Rights, we cannot even sue them.
Who will this bill truly cover? Republicans on election day.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of my dear friend from
Florida (Mr. Goss) if he has any speakers to defend his position?
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to inform the distinguished
gentleman from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) that we
actually have several speakers who are on their way. We have been
trying to let the time balance out.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, could the gentleman tell me where they are
on their way from?
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, they are nearby.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, so the gentleman does not have any speakers
at the present time?
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, actually, at this time we do have a speaker.
If I could inquire how much time is remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Both sides have 19 minutes
remaining.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, perhaps the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Moakley) would like to continue on his side since we are going to
close, and then we will have a speaker ready to go.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Moakley) actually has 17\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Goss) has 19\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) has
more time, so he can go if he would like.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much, and I
appreciate the consideration. We see the spirit of bipartisan comity at
work in the House, and we are very thankful for that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from
Ohio (Ms. Pryce).
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this
rule, which will allow the House to debate a plan to give seniors
access to affordable prescription drugs. This bipartisan plan is
voluntary, affordable, and covers all Medicare beneficiaries.
Yet, the other side wants to change the subject. They want to divert
our attention away from the fact that this Congress is about to vote on
one of the most significant issues we face this year by trying to bring
this House to a halt and to prove their claim that we are a ``do
nothing Congress.''
It has been their plan all along. Before this rule was even written,
they had the press release out celebrating their dramatic walk-out on
the debate this morning.
Regardless of how many substitutes, amendments, hours of debate,
their rhetoric and antics would be the same.
Well, methinks thou doth protest too much.
My colleagues know full well that, under this fair process, the rule
provides that both Republicans and Democrats get one bite of the apple,
one for them and one for us.
I would remind my colleagues that even this basic fairness was never
guaranteed until the Republicans took control of the House and ensured
that a motion to recommit would always be available to the minority.
But they do not want a fair fight. They want an unfair advantage. The
Democrats do not want to debate the issue. They are throwing a temper
tantrum to divert attention away from the merits of this bill.
Well, frankly, it is a transparent political strategy and it is
irresponsible. But these political stunts are not surprising. It has
been clear for some time that the issue of prescription drugs has been
a political game to the Democrats all along. And every minute they
waste, every dilatory tactic and every delay they employ will show
their real intentions. They did not walk out on us, Mr. Speaker. They
walked out on American seniors. And shame on them.
Mr. Speaker, I think the American people deserve better. They deserve
an honest debate about the merits of the Medicare prescription drug
plan that is before this House. Unfortunately, the Democrats' political
grandstanding is designed to eclipse an honest debate on the merits.
But we will walk through it if we must. We will do it cheerfully. The
American people deserve no less. They want to hear an honest debate.
I urge my colleagues, come back from their grandstanding, their press
conferences, their parade, and let us get to work. I urge my colleagues
to support this fair rule.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
[[Page H5308]]
Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to hear my colleague talk about a fair
debate. If this were a fair debate, a Democratic substitute or an
alternative would have been allowed. It was not. And if they call a
motion to recommit a fair debate, which allows 10 minutes of debate at
the end of the bill after all the debate, I do not understand it. And
if it were not for that poll that was taken by some Republican
leadership, this bill would not be on the floor because it showed the
American people want a prescription bill.
So if they want to talk about politics, let us talk about politics.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Deutsch).
Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I hope that people here and people watching
on C-SPAN have a sense of what is going on. We are debating a rule, and
what that rule does, it prevents the Democrats from offering a
prescription drug coverage bill. That is what the rule does.
Now, why would the Republican leadership want to do that rule? Think
about that for a second. The reason they want that rule is it might
pass, the Democratic proposal might pass if offered. And so, by this
rule, the Democratic option will not be available.
Why not? Well, the Republican proposal, specifically when we get into
what it does, literally destroys Medicare. It changes Medicare from a
universal mandatory health care system for seniors to a selective
system only for seniors who are at 130 percent of poverty.
So the broad-based political support that we have for Social Security
and Medicare would end, and the things that we have done to sustain
Medicare would end.
Mr. Speaker, the issue of a voucher part of the program would also be
part of the Republican proposal, fundamentally different than what the
Democrats are trying to do.
Finally, very quickly, in closing I say that, in 1965, Medicare would
not have been passed if the Republicans were in charge. It will not
pass in the year 2000 with the Republican majority.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Frost).
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, in our small little meeting room on the third
floor of the Capitol last night, long after the evening television news
and safely passed newspaper deadlines, at approximately 2:30 a.m.,
Republican Congressional leaders moved to kill the momentum for
prescription medicine help for seniors.
That is why there will be no vote in the House of Representatives
today on a guaranteed Medicare prescription coverage plan for all
seniors who want it, which Democrats offered in the Committee on Rules
last night and which we are being prevented by this rule being debated
right now from offering on the floor today.
Instead, this Republican Congress would do its best today to place an
attractive shroud on the coffin of Medicare prescription coverage. The
Republican plan provides seniors with nothing but an empty promise, one
guaranteed by nothing more than their faith in the Republican party and
their allies among the HMOs and insurance companies.
Until recently, Republicans made little secret of their indifference
to skyrocketing prescription costs or their hostility toward Medicare
itself. Over the past few years, we have all become aware of how poorly
Americans have been treated by HMOs and insurance companies.
Under the Republican plan, though, their HMO or insurance company
will decide which prescription medicines they get as well as which
doctors they see. That is why Democrats earlier today took the dramatic
step of walking off the House floor, because Republicans know that only
in the dark of night can they hope to get away with denying seniors
guaranteed Medicare prescription coverage and because guaranteed
Medicare prescription coverage will remain a top Democratic priority
until we get it done in a Republican Congress this year or in a
Democratic Congress next year.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of my friend if any
of his wandering minstrels have showed up.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, we are doing very well attracting some very
quality testimony for this debate. And, of course, we have Members out
doing other things today despite efforts by the opposition to shut down
the House, which they announced last night, which is regrettable
because there is the Nation's business to do.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman
from Tennessee (Mr. Bryant).
Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Speaker, Social Security and Medicare, as we know it
today, are not going to go away. Please do not listen to those scare
tactics and listen to the honest debate that is before this House today
on prescription drug benefits.
People have always wanted insurance to protect against their losses
whether it is their house from burning or their car from being wrecked
or loss of income from death or disability and, as always, they wanted
a choice to be able to select the insurance that best fits their
specific needs.
People do not want to look to Washington for the one-sheet-fits-all
that we hear about so often, that solution that we know best in
Washington. We all want to be in charge of making our own health care
decisions.
Our bipartisan Republican/Democratic bill that we are talking about
on this side does just that. If my mother likes the prescription drug
program she is on, she gets to stay on that. She does not have to look
to Washington for that one-shoe-fits-all. Now, if she wants to shop
around for something better, then she has that freedom to do so. She
has a real choice here.
Our bipartisan bill establishes a cap or a limit what a senior would
have to pay each year even for high-cost drugs. So if we want a cap or
limitation, our bipartisan bill establishes this cap or a limit on what
a senior citizen will have to pay each year, even in high-cost drug
situations.
So if my colleagues have seniors in their district who like to make
their own health care choices, they ought to vote for this bipartisan
bill. And if they have seniors who would really enjoy the security and
the peace of mind of knowing that their yearly drug bill is limited,
they might want to vote for this bill also and for this rule, which I
strongly support.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel).
Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this unfair, partisan, shameful
rule. The fact, Mr. Speaker, is Medicare works. That is why we should
add to Medicare a prescription drug benefit. That is the only way to
add a reliable, affordable, guaranteed benefit for seniors.
We should not force seniors to deal with private insurance companies
to get prescription drug coverage. Why? Those private insurance
companies are not reliable.
The two major private insurance companies in Philadelphia that
dominate the market have both in recent months reduced their
prescription drug coverage, one company reducing from an $1,800 a year
benefit to $1,000 and now down to $500 a year benefit, for the same
premium I might add; and the second company refusing to cover any more
brand name drugs, only covering generics for the same premium they
originally charged. That will not do.
What can I say to Earl and Irene Baker of Lansdale, Pennsylvania?
They need real insurance coverage for prescription drugs.
I urge a no vote on this rule.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, might I inquire about the status of the time
on either side at this point.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) has
15\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) has 13
minutes remaining.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
(Mr. COBURN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
{time} 1230
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Goss) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask unanimous consent for the body to extend the
time on this debate for 4 minutes and allow me a total of 5 minutes to
speak.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Does the gentleman from
[[Page H5309]]
Florida (Mr. Goss) yield for the request?
Mr. GOSS. I regret I am unable to yield the additional 4 minutes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 1 minute.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, point of inquiry. Is it out of order to make
a unanimous consent request outside of the rule for additional time on
extension of the rule?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The manager of the resolution must yield for
that request and has not yielded. The gentleman is recognized for 1
minute.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, we are having a debate today; and we have
heard a lot of partisan bickering back and forth, and it is because
what we are doing is the wrong thing, and the politics of Washington is
claiming to fix a problem that is very real, but it is fixing the wrong
problem. The problem is, there is no competition within the
pharmaceutical industry and what is there is limited in its base. As we
seek to solve the problem for the very seniors that need our help, if
we do not solve the problem on competition, then we will, in fact, have
wasted Medicare dollars and cost-shifted another large cost of health
care to the private sector.
I would like to introduce into the Record the FTC Web site showing
four pharmaceutical companies who have been paying their competitors
not to bring drugs to market, costing the American consumers over $250
million a year. I would also enter into the Record various portions of
the paper talking about the pricing of prescription drugs, not the
availability but the pricing. If we fail to address that, we have
shirked our duty completely. Neither the Republican or the Democrat
bill does that.
Why the High Cost of Prescription Drugs Is a Problem We Can't Afford to
Ignore
Spending on prescriptions rose a record 17.4% last year.
Elderly patients saw the largest increases, with average
prescription prices increasing 18% for women aged 70-79 and
20% for women 80 and older. Men in the same age groups fared
a bit better, experiencing 9% and 11% increases,
respectively. For all Americans, prescription spending
averaged $387.09 per person in 1999, up from $329.83 in
1998.--Study by Express Scripts, a St. Louis-based pharmacy
benefits manager, which examined claims data from more than 9
million patients, reflecting average wholesale prices, June
27, 2000.
Express Scripts projects that spending on prescription
drugs will nearly double over the next five years, reaching
$758.81 per person in 2004.--Wall Street Journal, June 27,
2000.
The history of Medicare shows that the federal government
has seriously underestimated the future growth of the
program. In 1964, the Johnson administration projected that
Medicare in 1990 would cost about $12 billion (with an
adjustment for inflation); the actual cost was $110 billion--
almost a 1,000% cost underestimate. How much of a cost
underestimate can we afford for prescription drugs?--The
Origins of Medicare by Robert B. Helms, American Enterprise
Institute, April 1999.
Express Scripts noted that the introduction of new drugs,
such as the arthritis medicines Vioxx and Celebrex,
contributed significantly to the rise in spending last year.
However, roughly half of the total increase in drug spending
was due to higher prescription costs.--New York Times, June
27, 2000.
Of the 50 top selling drugs for seniors in 1999; 11
increased at least 5 times the rate of inflation; 16
increased at least 3 times the rate of inflation; 33
increased at least 1.5 times the rate of inflation, and only
12 increased slower than the rate of inflation.--Families
USA, April 2000.
Of the 50 top selling drugs for seniors between 1994 and
2000, 39 of which were marketed for all six years, 6
increased at least 5 times the rate of inflation; 11
increased at least three times the rate of inflation; 22
increased at least 2 times the rate of inflation; 30
increased at least 1.5 times the rate of inflation, and 37
increased faster than inflation.--Families USA, April 2000.
While prescription drugs accounted for about 5% of overall
health care spending in 1992, some experts have predicted
that that figure could rise to about 15% within 10 years.--
Los Angeles Times, May 29, 2000.
Drug spending is increasing 15% to 20% a year even in well-
run private health plans.--New York Times, May 15, 2000.
For 1999, drug spending is projected to have risen 14% to
18%, according to HCFA. A recent study by Families USA, a
health-care advocacy group, said the average cost of the 50
drugs most used by the elderly rose 3.9% last year, outpacing
the 2.2% inflation rate, and the prices of some medications
jumped as much as 10%.--Wall Street Journal, May 11, 2000.
Pharmacia Corp., which markets a generic version of the
drug called Toposar, reported a price of $157.65 for a 20-
milligram dose in the 1999 industry guide. But the actual
average wholesale price is $9.70, according to a government
price list.--Wall Street Journal, June 2, 2000.
Today, federal and state investigators are threatening
civil litigation against pharmaceutical makers that
authorities believe have induced Medicare and Medicaid to
overpay for prescription drugs by $1 billion or more a
year.--Wall Street Journal, May 12, 2000.
In 1997, Zachary Bentley, an employee of a Florida company
called Ven-A-Care that offered patients the option of
receiving intravenous drugs in their homes rather than at a
hospital, sent a toilet seat and an overpriced drug to HCFA.
Bentley noted that Medicare was paying providers almost $428
a day for a product that could be bought for $49--proof, in
Bentley's view, that the agency was wasting tax dollars as
the Pentagon did with its high-priced toilet seats in the
1980s.--Wall Street Journal, May 12, 2000.
____
FTC Charges Drug Manufacturers with Stifling Competition in Two
Prescription Drug Markets
complaint filed against hoechst marion roussel, inc. and andrx corp.;
proposed settlement reached with abbott laboratories and geneva
pharmaceuticals, inc.
complaints charge multi-million-dollar arrangements were designed to
keep generic versions of cardizem cd and hytrin off the market
The Federal Trade Commission today charged two drug makers,
Hoechst Marion Roussel (now Aventis) and Andrx Corporation,
with engaging in anticompetitive practices in violation of
Section 5 of the FTC Act, alleging that Hoechst, the maker of
Cardizem CD, a widely prescribed drug for treatment of
hypertension and angina, agreed to pay Andrx millions of
dollars to delay bringing its competitive generic product to
market. The Commission also announced a proposed settlement
with two other drug makers, Abbott Laboratories and Geneva
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., resolving charges that the companies
entered into a similar anticompetitive agreement in which
Abbott paid Geneva substantial sums to delay bringing to
market a generic alternative to Abbott's brand-name
hypertension and prostate drug, Hytrin.
``The financial arrangements between the branded and
generic manufacturers were designed to keep generic versions
of Cardizem CD and Hytrin off the market for an extended
period of time,'' said Richard Parker, Director of the FTC's
Bureau of Competition. ``These types of agreements have the
potential to cost consumers hundreds of millions of dollars
each year, Parker noted. He further explained that ``the
proposed consents with Abbot and Geneva will provide
immediate guidance to the drug industry and the antitrust bar
with regard to these kinds of arrangements, and the Hoechst-
Andrx complaint will allow the Commission to further consider
the issues as it examines the arrangement in that case in
light of a record developed during an administrative
hearing.''
Under legislation commonly known as the Hatch-Waxman Act, a
company can seek approval from the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) to market a generic drug before the
expiration of a patent relating to the brand name drug upon
which the generic is based. Pursuant to this Act, the first
company to file an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA)
with the FDA has the exclusive right to market the generic
drug for 180 days. No other generic can gain FDA approval
until this 180-day period expires. The purpose of the
exclusivity period is to encourage generic entry.
To begin the FDA approval process, the generic applicant
must: (1) certify in its ANDA that the patent in question is
invalid or is not infringed by the generic product (known as
a ``paragraph IV certification''); and (2) notify the patent
holder of the filing of the ANDA. If the patent holder files
an infringement suit against the generic applicant within 45
days of the ANDA notification, FDA approval to market the
generic drug is automatically stayed for 30 months, unless,
before that time, the patent expires or is judicially
determined to be invalid or not infringed. This 30-month
automatic stay allows the patent holder time to assert its
patent rights in court before a generic competitor is
permitted to enter.
Hoechst-Andrx complaint allegations
Hoechst sells Cardizem CD, a once-a-day diltiazem product
used to treat hypertension and angina--chronic, severe chest
pain due to a reduction in blood flow to the heart. The
Hoechst product accounts for approximately 70 percent of all
once-a-day diltiazem products sold in the United States. In
September 1995, Andrx filed its ANDA with the FDA to
manufacture and distribute a generic version of the drug,
and, as the first to file, was entitled to the 180-day
exclusivity right. Hoechst promptly sued Andrx for patent
infringement, which triggered the 30-month stay on FDA
approval of Andrx's ANDA. This 30-month period expired in
July 1998.
In September 1997, the FTC's complaint alleges, Hoechst and
Andrx entered into an agreement in which Andrx was paid to
stay off the market. Under the agreement, Andrx would not
market its product when it received FDA approval, would not
give up or transfer its 180-day exclusivity right, and would
not even market a non-infringing generic version of Cardizem
CD.
In exchange, Hoechst paid Andrx $10 million per quarter,
beginning in July 1998,
[[Page H5310]]
when Andrx gained FDA approval for its product. The agreement
also stipulated that Hoechst would pay Andrx an additional
$60 million per year from July 1998 to the conclusion of the
lawsuit of Andrx prevailed.
According to the FTC, the agreement acted as a bottleneck
that prevented any other potential competitors from entering
the market because: (1) Andrx would not market its product
and thus its 180 days of exclusivity would not begin to run;
and (2) other generics were precluded from entering the
market because Andrx agreed not to give up or transfer its
exclusivity.
According to the complaint, Hoechst's agreement with Andrx
had the ``purpose or effect, or the tendency or capacity'' to
restrain trade in the market for once-a-day diltiazem and in
other narrower markets. Entry of a generic into the market
immediately would have introduced a lower-cost alternative
and would have started the 180-day waiting period.
The complaint alleges that the agreement between Hoechst
and Andrx constituted an unreasonable restraint of trade;
that Hoechst attempted to preserve its monopoly in the
relevant market; that Hoechst and Andrx conspired to
monopolize the relevant market; and that the acts and
practices are anticompetitive and constitute unfair methods
of competition, all in violation of Section 5.
Abbott-Geneva: Complaint allegations
Hytrin is the brand-name for terazosin HCL, a prescription
drug marketed and sold by Abbott Laboratories. This drug is
used to treat hypertension and benign prostatic hyperplasia
(``BPH'' or enlarged prostate). Both hypertension and BPH are
chronic conditions affecting millions of Americans each year,
many of them senior citizens. According to the complaint,
Abbott paid Geneva $4.5 million per month to keep Geneva's
generic version of Hytrin off the U.S. market. This agreement
also resulted in a significant delay in the introduction of
other generic versions of Hytrin because Geneva was the first
filer with the FDA and other companies could not market their
generic products until 180 days after Geneva's entry.
In January 1993, Geneva filed an ANDA with the FDA for a
generic version of terazosin HCL in tablet form; Geneva filed
a similar ANDA for a generic version of terazosin in capsule
from in December 1995. In April 1996, Geneva filed a
Paragraph IV certification with the FDA for both ANDAs.
On June 4, 1996, Abbott sued Geneva, claiming patent
infringement by Geneva's generic terazosin HCL tablet
product. Abbott mistakenly made no such claim against
Geneva's capsule version of the product, even though both
tablets and capsules involved the same potential infringement
issues. Pursuant to the Hatch-Waxman Act, Abbott's lawsuit
triggered a 30-month stay of final FDA approval of Geneva's
generic tablet ANDA, until December 1998. Because no
similar lawsuit was filed regarding the generic capsule,
the FDA's review and approval process regarding this
product continued.
The complaint alleges that Geneva, confident that it would
win its patent infringement dispute with Abbott, planned to
bring its generic terazosin HCL capsule to market as soon as
possible after FDA approval. As the first filer for approval
of generic Hytrin capsules, Geneva would enjoy the 180-day
exclusivity period provided under the Hatch-Waxman Act.
When Geneva actually received FDA approval to market its
generic capsules, Geneva contacted Abbott and announced that
it would launch its product unless Abbott paid it not to
enter the market. Abbott, which estimated that the entry of a
generic would eliminate $185 million in Hytrin sales in the
first six months, reached an agreement with Geneva on April
1, 1998, pursuant to which Geneva would not bring a generic
terazosin HCL product to market until the earlier of: (1)
final resolution of the patent infringement lawsuit involving
the generic tablet product (including possible review by the
Supreme Court); or (2) entry into the market of another
generic terazosin HCL product. Geneva also agreed not to
transfer, assign or relinquish its 180-day exclusivity right
to market its generic product.
In exchange, the complaint alleges, Abbott would pay Geneva
$4.5 million per month until the district court ruled on the
ongoing patent infringement dispute. If the court found that
Geneva's tablet product did not infringe any ``valid and
enforceable claim'' of Abbott's patent, Abbott agreed to pay
$4.5 million monthly after that decision into an escrow
account until the final resolution of the litigation. Under
the agreement, the party ultimately prevailing in the patent
litigation would receive the escrow funds. The court hearing
the patent infringement case was not made aware of the
agreement between the companies.
In accordance with the agreement, Geneva did not introduce
its generic capsules in April 1998, and instead began
collecting the $4.5 million monthly payments from Abbott,
which exceeded the amount Abbott expected Geneva to receive
from actually marketing the drug. On September 1, 1998, the
district court granted Geneva's motion for summary judgment
in its patent litigation with Abbott, invalidating Abbott's
patent. Despite this victory, Geneva still did not enter the
market with its generic product, content to have Abbott make
monthly $4.5 million payments into the escrow account. On
July 1, 1999, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
affirmed the decision invalidating Abbott's patent. Under the
agreement, Geneva was to await Supreme Court consideration of
the matter before entering. According to the complaint,
Geneva did not enter until August 13, 1999, when, aware of
the Commission's investigation, it canceled its agreement
with Abbott.
The complaint alleges that Abbott's agreement with Geneva
had the ``purpose or effect, or the tendency or capacity'' to
restrain competition unreasonably and to injure competition
by preventing or discouraging the entry of competition into
the relevant market. As a result of the anticompetitive
behavior, the complaint alleges, the lower-priced generic
version of Hytrin was not made available to consumers,
pharmacies, hospitals, insurers, wholesalers, government
agencies, managed care organizations and others during the
time the agreement was in place.
Entry by a generic competitor would have had a significant
procompetitive effect. The complaint alleges that the
agreement between Abbott and Geneva constituted an
unreasonable restraint of trade; that Abbott monopolized the
relevant market; that Abbott and Geneva conspired to
monopolize the relevant market; and that the acts and
practices are anticompetitive in nature and tendency and
constitute unfair methods of competition, all in violation of
Section 5.
The proposed consent orders
Under the terms of the proposed settlement, Abbott and
Geneva would be barred from entering into agreements pursuant
to which a first-filing generic company agrees with a
manufacturer of a branded drug that the generic company will
not (1) give up or transfer its exclusivity or (2) bring a
non-infringing drug to market. In addition, agreements
involving payments to a generic company to stay off the
market would have to be approved by the court when undertaken
during the pendency of patent litigation (with notice to the
Commission), and the companies would be required to give the
Commission 30 days' notice before entering into such
agreements in other contexts. In addition, Geneva would be
required to waive its right to a 180-day exclusivity period
for its generic terazosin HCL tablet product, so other
generic tablets could immediately enter the market.
The proposed orders, which would expire in 10 years, also
contain certain reporting and other provisions designed to
help the Commission monitor compliance by the companies.
The Commission vote to issue the administrative complaint
against Hoechst/Andrx was 5-0. The vote to accept the
proposed consent orders with Abbott and Geneva was 5-0.
In a unanimous statement, the Commissioners said: ``These
consent orders represent the first resolution of an antitrust
challenge by the government to a private agreement whereby a
brand name drug company paid the first generic company that
sought FDA approval not to enter the market, and to retain
its 180-day period of market exclusivity. Because the
behavior occurred in the context of the complicated
provisions of the Hatch-Waxman Act, and because this is the
first government antitrust enforcement action in this area,
we believe the public interest is satisfied with orders that
regulate future conduct by the parties. We recognize that
there may be market settings in which similar but less
restrictive arrangements could be justified, and each case
must be examined with respect to its particular facts.
``We have today issued an administrative complaint against
two other pharmaceutical companies with respect to conduct
that is in some ways similar to the conduct addressed by
these consent orders. We anticipate that the development of a
full factual record in the administrative proceeding, as well
as the public comments on these consent orders, will help to
shape further the appropriate parameters of permissible
conduct in this area, and guide other companies and their
legal advisors.
``Pharmaceutical firms should now be on notice, however,
that arrangements comparable to those addressed in the
present consent orders can raise serious antitrust issues,
with a potential for serious consumer harm. Accordingly, in
the future, the Commission will consider its entire range of
remedies in connection with enforcement actions against such
arrangements, including possibly seeking disgorgement of
illegally obtained profits.''
The Commission is accepting public comment on the consent
in the Abbott/Geneva matter until April 17, 2000, after which
it will decide whether to make it final. Comments should be
sent to the FTC, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania
Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Bentsen).
(Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, this is a particularly sad day for the
House. My colleagues talked about this walk-out. The reason this man's
portrait is on the wall right here is because they walked out on the
British 224 years ago because they would not allow free and fair
debate. Today we are not allowed free and fair debate on the floor.
The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) just spoke about his
opinion.
[[Page H5311]]
The problem is that the Republicans are going to allow debate on only
one opinion, that gentleman's opinion over there. We are going to take
up a bill that one man has written, that the full House is not going to
get to debate, that affects 39 million Americans and we are going to
hide behind a phony debate, a phony argument, of a limitation in a
budget resolution that the Republican leadership violates time and
again; in fact, intends to violate later this week with a waiver on a
bill dealing with doctors.
They violated it on defense spending. Perhaps if we added an aircraft
carrier to this, we might be able to get a real debate going on this
issue.
They violated it for highway construction. They violated it for
agriculture. When it comes to senior citizens and whether or not we can
have a fair, full and open debate on the question of what type of
Medicare prescription drug coverage they ought to have, the Republicans
who never wanted to do this in the first place say, no, we will have
one issue on our bill alone, which the industry has already said will
not work, but we will talk about nothing else because they are afraid,
they are afraid, that too many of their Republicans may side with too
many of the Democrats in putting a real prescription drug plan under
Medicare; and we cannot allow that to happen because we lose the
political advantage.
Perhaps that is the unfair advantage that the gentlewoman from Ohio
was talking about.
Let us do what our forefathers intended us to do, the whole reason
that we are on the House floor today. Let us have a full, fair and
honest debate as Americans in the same way that the country was
established 224 years ago and be done with this sham debate on this
rule behind a phony argument of budget constraint that the Republicans
have already violated this year, violated last year, will violate
apparently later this week, and will violate for the rest of the year.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire as to whether the gentleman
on the other side has a speaker on the floor at this point.
Mr. GOSS. Actually, we have several very excellent speakers on the
floor at this time; but I think that the balance of the time, if the
gentleman wishes to go forward for the short yield, that would be fine
with us.
Mr. FROST. I would inquire of the Chair of the time remaining on each
side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) has
14\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) has 11
minutes remaining.
Mr. FROST. Does the gentleman still wish that we proceed?
Mr. GOSS. I have no strong preference. We are prepared to proceed if
the gentleman would like us to.
Mr. FROST. The gentleman has more time available at this time.
Mr. GOSS. I think I am detecting a suggestion that we proceed. In
that case, I am most delighted to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), as part of a bipartisan spirit of
unity.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I heard the words today too risky, too
hasty, bad procedure, not enough money, bad for seniors, unfunded
mandates, politics, empty promises, on and on. And once again, divide,
confuse, obstruct, pit seniors against youth, management against labor,
more and more class warfare in the House of Representatives.
I think enough is enough, and I think it is time to tell it like it
is today. The Democrats controlled Congress for 50 years. The Democrats
never balanced the budget. The Democrats never did a thing about
welfare. The Democrats never did a thing about prescription drugs. The
Democrats never did a thing about IRS reform and how well I know,
because for 12 years I tried to get the Democrats to take up the
Traficant bill to change the burden of proof and to require judicial
consent before the IRS can seize our property.
The Democrats would not even hold a hearing. The Republicans not only
had a hearing, they included the Traficant provisions in the bill, even
though the Democrats were against it and the President threatened to
veto it for the Traficant provisions.
Now listen to the statistics, and I want to compliment the Republican
Party. 1997 was the last year of the Democratic law; 1999 the first
year of the Republican law. Attachment of wages, $3.1 million under the
Democrats; $540,000 under the Republican reform. Property liens,
$680,000 under the Democrats; $160,000 under the Republican reform.
Seizure of our constituents' farms, businesses and homes, 10,037 under
the Democrat law; only 161 under the Republican law.
But that is not what bugs me today. JFK would have never walked out
from a fight. Truman would have never walked up that aisle. Eisenhower
would have never walked that aisle. Colin Powell would have resisted
that aisle like he resisted America's enemies. Warriors do not walk
out. I am disgusted today because we are not warriors. We walked away.
I am going to vote for the rule. I am going to vote for the bill. Is
it perfect? No. But what are the Republicans doing? What are they
doing? They are giving us the first prescription drug opportunity to
amend a great dilemma that as Democrats we have done nothing with. Now,
ours is better. Bring a better one out, and I am going to vote for it;
but I am going to vote for their bill because their bill is an
incremental process step that can be perfected, made better.
I want my constituents to have the benefit of a prescription drug
plan that begins the process of mitigating and remediating this
horrible problem; but I will say one thing, I did not walk out and I
want to commend the Republican Party, the Speaker and the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Archer) for helping me in the IRS reform bill, and I
want to commend the Republican Party for not only not walking out but
standing here and bringing forward this bill; and I am going to vote
for it.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Nevada (Ms. Berkley).
Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule.
This rule does not allow us to consider the best prescription drug plan
that we can offer our senior citizens. I represent the fastest-growing
senior population in the United States. Not a day goes by that I do not
receive a call from a frightened senior begging me to help them obtain
affordable prescription medication; sharing their feelings of despair
and worry; sharing their horror stories of having to choose between
buying food to survive or medicine that will help them survive; of
having to choose between paying their rent and purchasing their
prescription medication.
I have seen the Republican plan firsthand. The Nevada State
legislature passed similar legislation over 13 months ago, relying on
private insurance companies to provide drug coverage. To date, no
insurance company, not one, has agreed to participate.
My friends in Nevada are attempting to fix the program. They have the
best of intentions, just like my friends across the aisle. But why in
the world, when it is not yet functioning for the 223,000 seniors in
Nevada, would we try to replicate it for the millions of seniors that
are desperately in need of affordable prescription medication?
I urge my colleagues to consider the Democratic alternative that
would provide a comprehensive volunteer affordable prescription drug
plan. Our parents and our grandparents are expecting better from us.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Goss) for yielding me this time. I too rise to join the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Traficant) and the other Democrats who are helping us pass
and support this bipartisan bill. I am doing that in the name of some
constituents of mine, Brian and Sue Doe in Vidalia, Georgia.
Now Mr. Doe is retired from the police force, and Mrs. Doe is retired
from the Piggly-Wiggly Grocery Store chain. They are on a fixed income,
$20,000 a year. They do not know what procedural motions are, motions
to rise, motions to adjourn. In fact, it would be funny for them to
figure why would people who are paid $136,000 a year vote to adjourn
and quit working at 11:00 in the morning. But that is Washington.
Here is what they know, and here is what they are real experts on. On
their fixed income they have to pay about
[[Page H5312]]
$8,200 a year for prescription drugs, $8,200. Anything from Lipitor for
his cholesterol to something for her heart murmur; and they know that
these expensive drugs, this one right here at $10 a shot, that they
have to take three or four times a week, they know under this plan,
this bipartisan plan today, it will go down from $10 to about $6. They
know that $8,200 a year will go down to $6,000; even more than that.
They know that they will have the choice of plans. They know that this
will not get in the way of their doctor relationship. They will still
have a doctor-patient relationship, and they know they will be able to
go to the neighborhood pharmacist still, and they think this is very
important because they do not really want a one-size cookie cutter
Washington bureaucracy getting into their drug cabinet and telling them
how to live.
It is very important for the Does in Vidalia, Georgia, for the folks
in Savannah, Georgia, for the people in Miami, for the people in Maine,
for the people in San Francisco. It is time to come together and put
seniors over politics, and that is why I support this bill today.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the rule because this bill is a
sham. It covers only the poorest senior citizens whose incomes place
them near or below the poverty standard. It deliberately creates
another division in America: us who are wealthy enough to take care of
ourselves and them who are given a taxpayer handout because they are
poor. In fact, the Republican plan is carefully designed to fail, not
immediately, of course, certainly not before the November election. It
is being polished to look like gold until after the election. But next
year when everyone realizes this plan was virtually useless and
worthless, fool's gold, that failure will be used as a spear to attack
Medicare, the hammer the Republicans hope to use to privatize Medicare.
That is the bottom line, privatization. Eliminate the Medicare
program that provides universal, dependable, quality, guaranteed health
insurance for every senior citizen by right of American citizenship.
This bill is political chicanery at its very worst.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger), my friend and colleague.
Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I am a senior citizen. I actually am that
proper age and have Medicare and each night I use Zocor and Cardura and
Claritin D and Timoptin, but I pay for them myself. We in Congress earn
over $130,000 per year. We should not receive government assistance.
Let us help the poor who need it. The Democrat plan would take care of
us, the Kennedys, the Houghtons and the Ballengers. We are too rich. We
do not need it and nobody in Congress should get it, and yet the
Democrat plan allows it.
{time} 1245
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from West
Virginia (Mr. Wise).
Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about the hundreds of thousands
of rural West Virginians earning $12,000, $15,000 a year, sometimes
less than that, and that is why I am voting for a bill, the substitute,
that would extend the Medicare program as we already know it. We know
it, it has worked, let us have a prescription drug benefit.
I am voting against the Republican bill, however, that would simply
put this into the hands of the private insurance agencies, private
insurance industry that says they do not want it. It would put it into
the hands of private HMOs that are not functioning in rural States.
I am voting for a bill that would provide real prescription drug
coverage. I will not vote for a bill that will deny almost 300,000
senior citizens, many of them in rural areas, true coverage.
At a time when senior citizens need real medicine, strong medicine,
the Republican substitute unfortunately only gives them two aspirins
and tells them to go home and forget about it. That is not what we
ought to be doing here today.
Mr. Speaker, we should have a real bill on the floor to provide the
prescription drug benefits. I oppose the rule.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise my colleague, the
distinguished gentleman from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (Mr.
Moakley), that I have one speaker left besides myself to close.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Goss), I appreciate the warning.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the District of
Columbia (Ms. Norton).
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
The Republican majority touts their plan for offering people choices.
Why do they not begin by giving us a choice of bills? It is unthinkable
that seniors would buy into a plan that thrusts them further into the
managed care and HMO market that today routinely is dumping them. It is
unthinkable that we would commit scarce health care dollars to the
costly, countless administrative structures of HMOs instead of relying
on low costs, administrative efficiency built into Medicare.
It is unthinkable that we would send our seniors to a private sector
HMO party that private insurers say they will boycott. It is
unthinkable that we would send seniors shopping among the chaos of
premiums and deductibles and copayments, out there to snare even the
most sophisticated.
This rule gives seniors choices they cannot take and cannot afford.
It gives them every choice, except the choice they must have, a choice
between a cosmetic bill and one that works.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maine (Mr. Baldacci).
(Mr. BALDACCI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, this rule is a terrible rule. The rule does not
recognize alternatives. It does not recognize the importance of this
debate. For instance, in rural Maine, there is no private insurance
market and no matter how high we pile the money, no one is going there
to offer the care.
We are going to be writing a check to the HMO insurance companies
instead of providing universal voluntary and affordable coverage for
Maine senior citizens. We have over 211,000 seniors in Maine on
Medicare, over 15 percent, 16 percent of the State's population. They
are dependent upon having the ability to have drug coverage and there
is no private insurance market. They pay higher costs than urban or
suburban areas.
We need to make sure that it is part of the Medicare program and it
is universal across the board. I have heard references here today about
John Kennedy and Harry Truman. Let me tell my colleagues, I do not know
them, but I have read about them, and if they were here, I am sure that
they would be distressed about what is being passed by the Republican
leadership in the House today.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a vote against this rule and for more common
sense legislation.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Mrs. Thurman).
Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding
me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to say a couple of things. When I go home, I am
an elected official, I represent Democrats, Republicans, and
Independents. And what I heard from my constituents, and why we are
protesting so loudly, is because there are Americans that are not being
heard in this debate today.
I just want to bring up a few of those. We have the Older Women
League who says that they are a national grassroots membership
organization focusing soley on issues unique to women as they age,
there was a disappointment to see that the Republican prescription drug
plan does not represent a defined benefit added to the Medicare program
but rather a private insurance option.
We can go on, and we can talk about the National Council of Senior
Citizens. In short, the Republican RX 2000 Act is a fraud and a callous
and partisan attempt to create the illusion of sensitivity to a
desperate need of millions. It is based on private market plans in the
face of massive withdrawals from Medicare coverage by health insurance
industry.
[[Page H5313]]
Then on top of that, my colleagues should hear the health care
industry that they think is going to give them this insurance.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Massachusetts (Mr.
Moakley) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule and in opposition
to the majority bill that is before us today. I believe that the bill
before us is set up for failure, and it is set up for failure for one
simple reason, they don't want to do it. I do not want to question the
motives of the Republican leadership in offering this type of bill, but
we do know the intent and motivation of the insurance industry that is
being called upon to provide the drug-only insurance plan in order to
make this bill work.
They do not want to do it. In fact, in recent testimony by Charles
Kahn III, President of the Health Insurance Association of America,
before the Committee on Ways and Means earlier this month, he stated
and I quote, the proposals we have examined that rely on stand-alone
drug-only insurance policies simply would not work in practice.
Designing a theoretical drug coverage model through legislative
language does not guarantee that private insurers will develop the
product in the market.
Mr. Speaker, good things happen in this place when we come together
and work in a bipartisan manner to deal with a serious yet complicated
issue such as providing affordable drug coverage to seniors who need
it. That process did not take place today. I think we need to go back
to the drawing board and get it right.
Providing affordable Medicare prescription drug coverage for our
nation's seniors is one of the most pressing issues facing our country
today. Even though the elderly use the most prescriptions, more than 75
percent of seniors on Medicare lack reliable drug coverage. It is time
to modernize Medicare to reflect our current health care delivery
system. The use of prescription medications is as important today as
the use of hospital beds was in 1965 when Medicare was created.
I have heard from a number of seniors in western Wisconsin regarding
the problems they have paying for prescription drugs. One woman from a
small town in my district wrote to me and said:
I am sending you my medicine receipts for the month of
March. Why doesn't Medicare cover the cost of these drugs?
This is more than I can handle on my Social Security income.
Her monthly cost for prescription medicines is $382.13. That is a lot
of money for a widow on a fixed income.
Other seniors in my district are paying substantially higher medicine
prices than pharmaceutical companies most favored customers, such as
HMOs. A study conducted in my district found that price discrimination
by pharmaceutical manufacturers is one of the principle causes of the
high prescription medicine prices that confront seniors. Senior
citizens who pay for their own drugs pay more than twice as much for
drugs than do the pharmaceutical companies' most favored customers.
Not only are my seniors facing price discrimination in their
hometowns, but they can go to Canada and get the same medicine for a
substantially cheaper price. For example, a senior in Rice Lake,
Wisconsin pays $105 for a prescription of Zocor. If this senior makes
the short trip to Canada, then she would only pay $59 for the Zocor
prescription--a 129 percent difference. On average my constituents
would pay about 80 percent less for their drugs in Canada than they do
at home in western Wisconsin. That is wrong.
The cost of prescription medicines should not place financial strains
on seniors that would force them to choose between buying drugs and
buying food. We need to make prescription medicines affordable and
accessible to all of our seniors.
Unfortunately, today's debate is a sham. We will not have the
opportunity to discuss this issue in a fair and open process. The
majority decided to railroad the debate and silence the minority by not
allowing an alternative to be debated and voted upon. Our nation's
seniors deserve better. They deserve an open process, but the
Republican leadership has failed to deliver this.
The leadership has also failed seniors with their prescription drug
proposal. The Republican plan is doomed to fail because the plan relies
on health insurance companies to offer drug only policies which they
have said they won't offer. If insurance companies won't offer these
policies, how will seniors actually obtain prescription drug coverage
under the leadership plan?
Every insurance company with whom I have spoken has said that they
will not offer a drug-only insurance policy. In fact, in February, the
Health Insurance Association of America, which consists of 294
insurance companies, released a statement claiming, ``These `drug only'
policies represent an empty promise to America's seniors. They are not
workable or realistic.''
Why should the insurance companies provide these drug only policies?
They are in the business of insuring risk and there is no risk
associated with a drug only policy because most seniors need
prescription medications. This single benefit policy also will result
in adverse risk selection--only people with predictably high
prescription medicine costs will purchase the plan. This will increase
the cost to the insurance companies who in turn will pass the costs on
to the beneficiaries through higher premiums.
In addition, under the Republican plan, there is no guarantee that
seniors will have access to the specific drugs that they need. Plans
may establish restrictive formularies and exclude medicines they don't
want to cover. If a senior needs a drug the policy doesn't cover, then
he must prove that other similar drugs have an adverse effect on him
and go through the hoops of an uncertain appeals process just to get
the drug he needs.
We must provide a real solution to the problem of prescription drug
coverage for our seniors. The Republican plan falls woefully short. The
Democratic proposal heads in the right direction and builds on the
current Medicare program. Our plan would allow Medicare beneficiaries
the choice of traditional Medicare or Medicare HMO with a defined
benefit that would be available across the country. Further, seniors
would have lower premiums and a lower catastrophic cap.
Another issue our plan addresses is the regional disparities in
Medicare reimbursement rates and payments. There are some seniors in
select parts of the country that receive prescription drug coverage
through Medicare+Choice plans, an HMO. Most seniors across the country,
however, do not have this benefit. For example, the only
Medicare+Choice plan in my district cannot afford to offer a drug
benefit because of the low Medicare payment. Even though all seniors
pay into the Medicare system, only a few receive the extra drug
benefit. While both the Republican and Democratic proposals provide for
some target relief such as increasing the minimum payment and moving
faster to the 50/50 blend, the Democratic plan includes language that
Congress will work to provide equal treatment for all seniors by not
compounding the geographic disparities that unfairly penalize
Medicare+Choice plans from doing business in low payment areas. The
Republican plan is silent on this issue.
It is unfortunate that the Republican leadership has squandered an
excellent opportunity to try and solve the problem of prescription drug
coverage in a bipartisan fashion. Instead they have steam-rolled ahead
and presented our nation's seniors with an unworkable solution to a
grave problem. I urge my colleagues to reject this flawed proposal.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Moakley) has 4 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss)
has 8 minutes remaining.
Mr. MOAKLEY. I have one remaining speaker so the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Goss) may proceed.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I also have one remaining speaker other than
myself to close.
Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 5 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas), the author
of the bill.
(Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, today actually started in 1998, when, under
the 1997 Balanced Budget Act, we created the Bipartisan Commission on
Medicare. We knew that Medicare had to change, that prescription drugs
had to be integrated into Medicare, that it was overdue. The bipartisan
commission met for more than a year, and we came up with the proposal.
That bipartisan effort has continued even though the commission ended.
In January of this year, the President, in his budget, finally
presented a prescription drug proposal on the administration's behalf.
Remember, 1999, the bipartisan commission offered a proposal, then
early this year, the President offered it.
We have been working, on a bipartisan basis, to carry forward a plan
to put prescription drugs in Medicare. Today we have that debate. Most
of the
[[Page H5314]]
discussion so far has been on the rule, that somehow when the
bipartisan plan gets a vote and the Democratic plan gets a vote, that
is unfair.
Their argument is they cannot argue their issue. Every Democratic
speaker that has gotten up to speak has condemned the bipartisan plan
and praised theirs. There is an hour debate on the rule evenly divided.
There is a 2-hour debate on the bill evenly divided. There is one vote
for the bipartisan plan, and one vote for the Democratic plan.
The reason the Democrats are upset is because it is not two bites of
the apple for them and one bite for us. They say the bipartisan plan is
not in Medicare. They say it is not guaranteed. That, in fact, it is a
shame. Now, I could spend a lot of time arguing with my colleagues on
the other side to tell them they are wrong. Do not let me make the
argument. We will let Horace Deets, the executive director of the
American Association for Retired Persons, make the argument, and what
does he say, we are pleased that both bills include a voluntary
prescription drug benefit in Medicare.
If my colleagues are honest, they will not make that argument again.
I quote from Horace Deets: ``Our plan and their plan puts it in
Medicare. Further, both bills provide a benefit that would be available
in either fee-for-service or managed care settings.'' They have made
the argument. If they are honest, they will not make it again. It is
available in fee-for-service, and managed. It is not just one area. Let
us see if they are honest.
He goes on to say, ``There are differences between both bills, but
the core prescription drug benefit is in statute.'' It is not
illusionary. My colleagues have made the argument that we are offering
something that does not really exist. Horace Deets and the American
Association of Retired Persons say the bipartisan plan is in statute.
It is guaranteed. It is part of Medicare. It is available on a
voluntary basis, and we can get it in fee-for-service or in managed
care.
I imagine that is going to require my colleagues to scratch out a lot
of lines of their debate. Let us see if they scratch it out, so it is
an honest debate or if they continue to repeat the untruths that Horace
Deets shows are, in fact, untruths.
Now, what is it the real debate is going to be? It is going to be
this: The bipartisan plan offers choice. Their plan does not. We offer
pocketbook protection now, seniors should not have to pay high costs.
We incorporated it into the $40 billion, which was in the budget
resolution, pocketbook protection for seniors now. Look at the
Democratic plan. They matched the $40 billion over the first 5 years,
the same as the bipartisan plan, but the Congressional Budget Office
says over the next 5 years, it goes to $295 billion. Why? Because the
pocketbook protection is not in the first 5 years, it is in the last 5
years.
They lose on that comparison. We have twice the savings that their
plan has. The Congressional Budget Office certifies it. As we listen to
this debate, just remember they get one vote, we get one vote. The time
of the debate is evenly divided, they are making their points, we are
making ours. The rule is fair. The question is will the debate be
honest.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), our Democratic minority leader.
(Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, this process, this rule is an outrage
against the American people. It has been said that the Republican plan
is a bipartisan plan. It is not a bipartisan plan.
There has been no conversation about this plan and the putting
together of the plan with the members of our Committee on Ways and
Means. There has been no conversation between the leadership on either
side about how we could build a bipartisan plan to add a prescription
drug benefit to Medicare.
This process is a grave disservice to all Americans. The debate is
being shut down on the most important issue to American seniors since
the creation of Medicare. The decision of the majority does more than
deny the view of the Democratic minority to be heard, it denies the
American people a vote on a plan that would provide real affordable,
definable, and guaranteed prescription medicine benefits for America's
seniors.
This debate, like so many of the debates we have held in this
Congress this year, is always my way or the highway.
{time} 1300
Bipartisan is defined by: Are you for our partisan bill? Not: Can we
work together to find real bipartisanship?
I believe the other party is stooping to this level simply for
politics. They are intent on passing anything that is called
``prescription coverage'' in order to avoid the issue being raised in
the November elections. It is the passage of a press release. It is the
passage of a statement of intent. They want to ram through their bill
and shut down debate so that the American people will not know what
this sham bill really is. Their posters said it best when Glen Bolger
told them, and I quote, ``It is more important to communicate that you
have a plan than it is to communicate what is in the plan.'' This is a
PR effort. It is a sham. It is a hoax. It is public relations. It is
electioneering. It is not writing a plan that will help the American
people.
Mr. Speaker, instead of making prescriptions more affordable for
seniors, they want to hand a huge subsidy to the insurance industry,
which has said it will not write these plans. The head of the
association came and said, we will not write these plans. Why will they
not write these plans? They will not write them because this is not
what insurance companies do. They underwrite risk. We have fire
policies on our houses. Why? Because most houses do not burn down. The
lucky people pay for the unlucky people. When we come to prescription
drug benefits, everybody makes a claim, because everybody needs
prescription drugs. It is a benefit, not an insurance plan. That is why
the basic supposition of the Republican plan that they are going to
turn this over to insurance companies is completely flawed, and
completely wrong.
Mr. Speaker, we believe this should be done through Medicare. We
believe it should be affordable. We believe it should be definable. We
feel it should be equal all over this country.
What is really happening today is what really happened 35 years ago.
This is the same debate we had over Medicare. The Republicans wanted to
privatize Medicare; we wanted to have Medicare run through a Medicare
system. They want to set up a new bureaucracy in the Government to run
this program; we say we can run it through the Medicare system.
Republicans have never believed in Medicare. As former Speaker
Gingrich once said, ``Medicare would wither on the vine because we
think people are voluntarily going to leave it.'' The majority leader
once said, Medicare should not be part of our society. We should not
have to be in this program.
Mr. Speaker, I say to my friends in the Republican Party, that is an
honest debate. If my colleagues want to get rid of Medicare, say so. If
they want to privatize it, try to do so. But let us have an honest
debate. Let us have real alternatives on the floor. Our plan is a real
benefit, it is definable, it is affordable, it is equal for everybody
in this country. It would have catastrophic coverage so that people
over $4,000 a year of costs would have all of their Medicare costs
picked up.
I was in a press conference with seniors a few days ago. A woman who
had a heart transplant got up and said her costs are $1,300 a month for
her drugs. She said her Social Security benefit is $1,300 a month. And
then she broke down and cried, because she could not figure out where
the money to live on was going to come from.
Mr. Speaker, we need a plan that offers a real benefit to people like
that who right now in today's world are facing this problem. Vote
against this rule, vote to defeat this plan, let us get back to writing
a real bipartisan plan that will help the seniors citizens of this
country.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I think it has all been pretty well said on this rule. Each side has
had a bite of the apple and, as we can tell from the debate so far,
there are different points of view on what is the best plan. They are
both being aired, so
[[Page H5315]]
those who would say there is no debate obviously would be incorrect.
There is debate, and it is happening as we speak.
One of the problems I think that we are facing today is, indeed, the
emergence of partisan politics again. I think the record is fairly well
clear, the public record, I think it is established that the minority
leader's game plan, and it has been stated as such, is to ensure that
this is a ``do-nothing Congress.'' On our side of the aisle, our
leadership intends to ensure that we are a ``do the important American
business Congress,'' the business of America that they want done; and
that important thing that is called affordable prescription drugs for
our seniors certainly falls on the list of important things to do. We
are doing that. We are not walking out, and I am a little confused by
the minority leader's comments about press conferences that he has been
going to, because I understand that that is exactly what the
instructions were this morning to the minority, was to get up en masse
and walk out and attend a press conference on the east front steps of
the Capitol which, in fact, we witnessed.
I do not think that is the way to do the Nation's business. I realize
we can get good sound bites at press conferences, but it does not get
the hard work done, and we are here to do the hard work. I congratulate
the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), and I congratulate those on
the other side of the aisle who have participated in working with him
to bring forward a bipartisan bill which provides affordable
prescription drugs for seniors. That is what we are doing today; that
is the important Nation's business. The rule is fair, each side gets a
bite at the apple; and I believe that the Thomas bill, along with his
colleagues on the other side, have come up with a good bipartisan plan
which will bring affordable prescription relief for our seniors; and I
think that will be a huge accomplishment, and it will be well received.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a yes vote on this rule.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong
opposition to the rule which has a sole purpose of prohibiting
Democrats from offering our prescription drug benefit plan, for which
we have been advocating long before the majority realized that it is a
``political imperative'', in this election year, to at least address
the issue of prescription drugs.
As one of the first to join the Democrats prescription drug bill, I
have been a vociferous advocate for the need for real prescription drug
coverage and not the type of ineffective coverage proposed by the
majority.
The Republican prescription drug plan is a political sham crafted to
mislead America's seniors.
It has been said, ``The healthy, the strong individual, is the one
who asks for help when he needs it. Whether he has an abscess on his
knee or in his soul.'' Our senior citizens are asking for our help to
continue to live their lives as healthy individuals. It is time for us
to answer this call, but the majority refuses to do so.
If the majority were truly concerned about the needs of this nation's
elderly and the disabled, then I ask them to allow alternative
proposals to be offered, so that we can work together on both sides of
the aisle, to benefit America's seniors and the disabled.
This is an absolute travesty of the legislative process. The majority
voted in the wee hours of the morning to prohibit any amendments to
their supposed ``prescription drug'' proposal because they are more
concerned about their political races, than about true prescription
drug coverage.
The drug plan introduced by the GOP will in no way guarantee access
to coverage. Instead, this proposal allows plans to ration the
prescription drugs available for coverage by limiting coverage to a
specific list of drugs.
Therefore, if a doctor prescribes a medication which they deem
medically necessary, but is not on the list, then seniors will not
receive coverage. To make matters worse, this bill would actually limit
seniors' choice of drugs and pharmacies and raise cost for some seniors
with medical problems.
It is tragic that the majority truly believes that it can play games
with the lives of this nation's seniors by attempting to disguise H.R.
4680 as a prescription drug plan, when it is actually a meaningless
proposal to advance special interests.
Many senior citizens live on a limited, fixed income. The cost of
prescription drugs is an important issue because senior citizens are
more likely to suffer from chronic long-term illnesses, such as
diabetes, high blood pressure, and Alzheimer's disease which require
medication.
Although prescription drugs are covered by most private insurance, 37
percent of senior citizens do not have their own prescription drug
coverage. The average senior citizen takes several medications a day
(up to 30 prescriptions a year) and many of them pay for their own
medications out of pocket.
If the majority were truly concerned about providing prescription
drug coverage, then H.R. 4680 would provide benefits everywhere in the
United State and not limit it according to the plans the private
insurance industry and pharmaceutical industry decide to offer.
Currently, our nation's Medicare program provides vital health
insurance for 39 million aged and disabled Americans.
The Republican leadership has never supported the Medicare program;
thus it is not surprising that their prescription drug bill fails to
adequately address the concerns of those seniors and the disabled
currently on Medicare. Democrat proposals better reflect senior
citizen's concerns.
It is clear the Republicans truly do not understand the needs of this
nation's seniors and the disabled on Medicare. Instead of providing the
prescription drug benefit plan that they request, the majority instead
asks Americans to ``trust the HMOs.''
The Republican proposal fails to provide a single dollar directly to
seniors or the disabled. Instead, they must rely on the private
insurance industry that already fails to insure millions of this
nation's population.
The Republican plan does nothing to address the soaring price of
prescription drugs. However, under the Democrat plan, the nation's
seniors and the disabled are protected, allowing them to obtain their
needed medications without worrying about whether this purchase will
prohibit them for paying rent, purchasing food or other necessities.
The facts are simple, Democrat proposals do more for seniors and the
disabled. Democrat proposals provide comprehensive care for all of the
nation's seniors and not just some.
Mr. Speaker, I strenuously object to the imposition of a closed rule
because we all know that H.R. 4680 is simply the latest attempt to
appease the nation's seniors into believing that they will obtain
comprehensive prescription drug coverage while actually providing them
with an empty excuse for a prescription drug plan.
Under H.R. 4680, it is the drug companies that benefit, not the
nation's seniors. Yet, even these same insurance companies fail to
believe that this proposal of a drug-only private insurance scheme will
work in practice.
Heads of top Insurance associations and companies like the Health
Insurance Association of America, Mutual of Omaha, and even Blue Cross
& Blue Shield believe that a private sector drug benefit provides a
false hope to America's seniors because it is ``neither workable nor
affordable.''
In fact, the executive vice president of Mutual of Omaha Companies
has stated ``I'm convinced that stand-alone drug policies won't work.
The National Association of Chain Drug Stores strongly opposed H.R.
4680 as do the United Auto Workers, the National Association of
Manufacturers, the National Council of Senior Citizens, the Older
Women's League, and even the American Association of People with
Disabilities.
All of these groups agree that what America's seniors need is a
prescription drug bill with substantive protection and not simply empty
rhetoric. Simply communicating the message that ``I have a plan,''
despite what pollsters say, is not what America needs.
I stand in opposition to this rule and ask my colleagues to allow
sincere measures to be offered on behalf of America's seniors. We need
to invest in this nation's elderly who have contributed so much to the
stability of this society. I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and
the majority's attempt to deceive the American people.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on ordering the
previous question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground 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 9 of rule XX, the Chair announces that he will
reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within which a vote
by electronic device, if ordered, will be taken on the question of
agreeing to the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 227,
nays 204, not voting 4, as follows:
[[Page H5316]]
[Roll No. 347]
YEAS--227
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Fossella
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
Kelly
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Martinez
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moakley
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Paul
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--204
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Phelps
Pickett
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Sisisky
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--4
Cook
Markey
Strickland
Vento
{time} 1326
Mr. SNYDER changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mrs. CUBIN and Mr. MOAKLEY changed their vote from ``nay'' to
``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Motion to Reconsider The Vote Offered By Mr. Moakley
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote by which the
previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Did the gentleman from
Massachusetts vote on the prevailing side?
Mr. MOAKLEY. I did, Mr. Speaker.
Motion to Table Offered by Mr. Dreier
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay on the table the motion to
reconsider the vote.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) to lay on the table the motion
offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) to reconsider
the vote.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 220,
noes 205, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 348]
AYES--220
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Fossella
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Kasich
Kelly
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Martinez
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Paul
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--205
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
[[Page H5317]]
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Phelps
Pickett
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Sisisky
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--10
Buyer
Cook
Gekas
Goodlatte
Hunter
Markey
Meeks (NY)
Stearns
Strickland
Vento
{time} 1337
Ms. Woolsey, Mr. Doggett, and Mr. McDermott changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
So the motion to table was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 15-minute vote on the
resolution, followed by a possible 5-minute vote on a question
incidental thereto.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 216,
noes 213, not voting 6, as follows:
[Roll No. 349]
AYES--216
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
English
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Fossella
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Kasich
Kelly
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Martinez
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Paul
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--213
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Chenoweth-Hage
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Phelps
Pickett
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Shadegg
Sherman
Shows
Sisisky
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--6
Cook
Jones (NC)
Markey
Souder
Strickland
Vento
{time} 1400
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California changed his vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
Mr. WHITFIELD and Mr. MORAN of Kansas changed their vote from ``no''
to ``aye.''
Mr. DeFAZIO changed his vote from ``present'' to ``no.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as aboved recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Without objection, a motion to
reconsider is laid on the table.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
Motion to Reconsider the Vote Offered by Mr. Goss
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote.
Motion to Table Offered by Mr. Dreier
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the motion to reconsider on
the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) to lay on the table the motion
to reconsider the vote offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Goss).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
[[Page H5318]]
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 222,
noes 204, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 350]
AYES--222
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Fossella
Fowler
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
Kelly
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Martinez
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Paul
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--204
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Phelps
Pickett
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Sisisky
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--9
Cook
Edwards
Franks (NJ)
Gekas
Goodling
Markey
Peterson (MN)
Strickland
Vento
{time} 1411
Mr. SNYDER and Mr. WEYGAND changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the motion to table the motion to reconsider was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
____________________