[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 136 (Thursday, October 26, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H11243-H11264]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2615, CERTIFIED DEVELOPMENT COMPANY PROGRAM
IMPROVEMENTS ACT OF 2000
Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 652, I call up
the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2614) to amend the Small
Business Investment Act to make improvements to the certified
development company program, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). Pursuant to House Resolution
652, the conference report is considered as having been read.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of
legislatiave day of October 25, 2000, Part 2.)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Talent) and
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Talent).
Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago I had a call from the leadership staff
asking if I had a problem with using this legislation as a vehicle for
passing a number of things that I understood we had substantial
bipartisan support for in the House.
I said no. I thought if it would facilitate the passage of
legislation that meant really good things for a whole lot of American
people that we ought to try to do it. And we have a conference report
and on the surface of it it has a lot of things that I think a lot of
people in this House like.
It has a minimum wage increase. It has small business tax relief,
which I can testify has very strong support in the House and is very
necessary in the small business community. It has the repeal of
provisions which have prevented installment sales of businesses. It has
an increase in the meals deduction, an increase in the deductibility of
health insurance premiums for the self-employed. It has the Portman-
Cardin pension reforms. It has Medicare give-backs. And most important
for my perspective, Mr. Speaker, it has the community renewal new
markets bill, which we had a press conference with the White House
several months ago and all of us agreed, Republicans, Democrats, the
President, the leadership of the House said it was the most significant
anti-poverty legislation to pass this body in a generation.
I thought when I had a chance to handle this bill, and I flew back
today to do it, that it would be a time of joy and a time of shared
celebration.
I understand that the President has serious objections and may well
veto this bill, and my heart is sad at that because it just seems to me
there is so much good in here for the American people that we all ought
to support it. I would hope he would find a way to sign it; and if we
have some problems, work that out in some other format or some other
way because I am just concerned if we do not do it now, we will not
have a chance to do these things for the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman says that if there are differences in the
bill that he seriously hopes that we could work it out. That makes a
lot of sense, and that is why probably he is not a part of the
Republican leadership.
The reason we have a veto here is because somebody on the other side
of this aisle decided that they did not want to work out anything.
How do they think we are going to get out of here unless they talk to
somebody? They do not have to talk to me, but they can talk to the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt). They can talk to someone in the
White House. They do not even talk to themselves. And now they come
here and force the President to say that he is going to veto it merely
because they have not discussed anything.
There are some good things in this bill. There are things that can be
worked out in this bill. I have worked
[[Page H11244]]
with the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) on the school
construction thing. We did not always agree on everything, but we sat
and we worked until we made certain that we got it out.
Now what is happening? With all due respect to the Committee on Small
Business, we have a major tax initiative coming to the floor on a
vehicle.
Well, I respect the integrity and the reputation of the Committee on
Ways and Means. And whether we are Republican or Democrat, liberal or
conservative, this is not the way to run a railroad.
It is wrong to bring out a tax bill in the middle of the night. It is
wrong not to consult with the President. And it is wrong not to consult
with our colleagues who are trying to work this out.
So if they need a veto to get their attention, if they need a veto in
order to come and sit down and do this thing right, if they need a veto
so we can wrap up our business and get home, well, my brothers and
sisters have got it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say to the
gentleman, and he knows how much I respect him and how I have worked
with him on these anti-poverty provisions, and I am certain that there
are hurt feelings on both sides. I just would hope that we could
somehow overcome this and get these important things done that real
people and, in particular, vulnerable people depend on.
I am just convinced that, if a veto comes down, we are not going to
have another chance; and we will have blown this up on what the people
will see as an inside internecine kind of squabble.
Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), the chairman of the Committee on
Ways and Means.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, this is one of the more difficult moments that I have
faced in my tenure over 30 years in the House of Representatives. As
chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, I believe I have a very
special role; and that is to be steward of a tax code, to try to keep
it as equitable as possible, to try to see that in spite of the
difficulties of earning income tax that it is as simple as possible,
and to attempt to see that it has not become a vehicle for spending.
There is much good in this bill. I know because I helped to write it.
I do not need to repeat all of it to Members because they have examined
all of the good that is in this bill.
Unfortunately, it is included with an increase in the minimum wage,
which I have never voted for and which I believe is counterproductive
to the very people that it seeks to help. I cannot break with my
principles on that, and on that alone I would vote against this bill.
Now, in spite of all the very good provisions that are in this bill,
bipartisan, voted overwhelmingly on the floor of the House, I am
severely troubled by items that were added at the last minute under
pressure from the White House and pressure from the Senate. They will
be a springboard to turn future tax bills into spending vehicles
uncontrolled by the budget; uncontrolled by the limitation that would
be on appropriations bills; and, in all likelihood, not adequately
debated for what they are.
One of those is the provision that would subsidize Amtrak by tax
credits with the authorization of $10 billion in bonds and the interest
being offset by a dollar-for-dollar tax credit, which would also permit
the interest to be separated from the principal, coupled with the tax
credit and traded on the stock market.
{time} 1545
That is deja vu of what we went through in the 1980s which grew so
pernicious that it brought on the 1986 tax reform bill to remove it
from the code. But what we seem to learn from history is we never seem
to learn from history, so here we go again.
Is it big relatively, this bill? No, it is relatively small. But it
creates a precedent for the future that Congress needs to know about. I
have fought tax credits. I have kept six or eight of them from going
into this bill, because I do not want the tax code to be turned into a
spending vehicle administered by the IRS. That is a great danger
ultimately to the future of our tax code, and then in addition a
similar provision to have the Federal Government subsidize the
construction of local schools through once again having interest offset
by tax credits. I believe that we must stop this. We must prevent it
from occurring.
But the minimum wage clearly shuts out my capability to vote for what
for the most part is superb tax policy, to help people get more health
care, to help small businesses, to help pension, to help retirement
security, all things that this Nation should try to get. And also I
have worked so hard on a bipartisan basis with my friend, the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Rangel), and with the Treasury to find an answer to
the FSC problem which if we do not solve it could unleash an unholy
trade war where everyone would suffer. I do not know what will happen
to this bill. But if we do not do but one thing, we must come back and
pass the FSC provisions. The danger in failing to do so is too great.
I wish I could vote for this bill. If the tax provisions that we
crafted and put together as the basis of this bill were submitted by
themselves to this House, I would enthusiastically support them. Each
Member must make his own decision. My special position as chairman of
the Committee on Ways and Means does not permit me to vote for this
bill in its current form.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the ranking member of the
Committee on Small Business.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). Without objection, the
gentlewoman from New York will control the time on her side of the
aisle.
There was no objection.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the conference agreement
for H.R. 2614. Last August when the House passed H.R. 2614, we took the
first step in strengthening a program that would provide countless
businesses across this country the access to the capital they so
desperately need to succeed.
Fourteen months later, instead of a bill that offers opportunity, we
now have a bill full of misguided priorities. At a time when this
Nation is experiencing an affordable health care crisis, this
conference report meets this growing deficiency by increasing payments
to already wealthy HMOs at the expense of our hospitals and rural
communities.
This legislation will also shortchange our children by once again
failing to address the need for school construction. In every community
across this country, there are kids who are being taught reading,
writing, science and math in trailers, makeshift classrooms, and in
hallways within neglected school buildings. I am astounded that in
today's world when it is hard enough to help our at-risk kids to keep
pace, forcing them to learn in Third World conditions is simply
disgraceful.
What distresses me the most, this Congress has passed despite, all
their lofty promises, only half of what the President asked for in his
budget request. It is unfortunate that this bill faces a veto from the
President because, to be perfectly frank, there is much in here that
will help our communities by funding valuable small business programs,
including enacting the new markets community renewal programs.
I would like to thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Talent) for
all he has done to bring valuable investment into our Nation's low-
income communities. His leadership has helped provide small businesses
and entrepreneurs a stronger foundation which will help them grow and
prosper. But one issue is clear. The sum of legislation outweighs the
good this bill could do for so many in this country.
This is not how we should be ending this Congress. We are leaving at
a time when there is so much more that can and should be done.
Unfortunately, the 106th Congress is ending with far too many promises
made and far too few promises kept.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page H11245]]
Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the Speaker of the House.
Mr. HASTERT. I thank the gentleman from Missouri for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, in this body from time to time there comes a time when
we bring ideas together and people together to get good things done. We
have to work in the House, and they have to work in the Senate and you
have got a White House on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue that all
have input. This piece of legislation is a piece of legislation that
both bodies, and the White House, had some input in putting together.
We have talked about the minimum wage, and we have talked about it
far too long; and we have not done anything about it. This is a minimum
wage for American working people. It is over 2 years. It is something
that I have heard required and requested on this side of the aisle for
a long, long time. It is reality in this legislation. It is also
reality in this legislation that small businesses, and in my district
75 percent of the jobs are provided by small businesses, we give them
the ability to stay in business and provide those jobs in this
legislation.
We talk about the waitress at the coffee shop who works maybe a job
or a job and a half and tries to keep her kids in school and shoes on
their feet and tries to keep a good life. She cannot afford and her job
does not provide health care. But when she goes to buy that health
care, she does not get the same tax deduction that an executive or
somebody working in a big plant would get that benefit.
This bill gives American working people who have to go out and buy
their health care week in and week out, year in and year out that same
tax benefit that anybody else that gets it through a corporate entity
would get.
My father died 2 years ago. We kept him in our home because he did
not want to live in a nursing home. We gave him health care and took
care of him. It did not make any difference to me whether it was a tax
credit or not, but there are a lot of people that cannot afford to do
that. But if you can keep a parent in your home because that is where
they want to live, among their family, that families can get a tax
deduction of $10,000, if you want to take care of your folks. And it is
in this bill. It is good for all families in this country, whether you
are middle class, whether you are at great risk or if you are upper
class. That is what, if you choose to do it, you ought to have the
ability to do it and you ought to have that tax deductibility for it.
This bill also has something that the President wanted, and the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts) and the gentleman from Missouri
(Mr. Talent) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) over on this
side of the aisle worked on, was the community renewal, new markets, so
it would invest in people's homes, invest in communities, in inner
cities and rural areas so that those people could have a better life,
that they could have shopping where they live, they could have jobs
where they live, that they could fix their homes up, that they can pull
themselves up by their own bootstraps and there is help to do it. This
bill has that in it.
I guess I could go on and on. This bill certainly is not perfect. We
do not think some of the things that they do on the other side of the
Rotunda is always perfect and I guess they may have the same attitude
about us. But we have to work on a bicameral basis, and we have to
accept what bodies put in this.
I am telling you, this is the right bill for this time. We need to
move forward. We need to take care of families. We need to take care of
senior citizens. We need to take care of people that want to buy their
own health care, and we need to take care of our communities that are
in the greatest need. Even though this is a great political time, and
the politics are at crescendo levels, it is time for this body to quit
the quibbling, to come together, and pass good legislation. I would ask
Members to join us on both sides of the aisle to do it. Please support
this bill.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Brown).
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, the power that the managed care
industry wields over the leadership of this Congress is absolutely
astounding. How else do you explain our inability, 4 years after
legislation first took shape, to pass a Patients' Bill of Rights? How
else do you explain this $30 billion Republican gift to the managed
care industry as we short shrift hospitals and home health agencies and
every other Medicare provider? How else do you explain Republicans
giving almost half, 47 percent, of new Medicare money to an industry
which has shortchanged millions of senior citizens?
If this Republican Congress is not selling out to the insurance
industry, how do you explain this remarkably skewed Medicare funding
bill? The Republican majority took bipartisan legislation and proceeded
to strip out additional funding for public hospitals, to strip out
funding for low-income seniors, to strip out provisions for rural
health facilities. But they left in plenty of money for HMOs.
Mr. Speaker, HMOs serve between 15 and 16 percent of the Medicare
population, but under this bill they will get close to 50 percent of
available funding. Let me repeat that. HMOs serve one-sixth of Medicare
beneficiaries. The Republican bill will give them 50 percent of the
funding. To strike this remarkable imbalance, the Republican majority
eliminated funding measures that would help public hospitals, that
would help home health agencies, that would help other providers so
they remain available to Medicare beneficiaries.
Where does the welfare of Medicare beneficiaries fit into this
equation? The answer is it simply does not. Seniors in Lorain County,
Ohio, where I live, were dropped unceremoniously from United Health's
plan on December 31, 1998. Some of them joined QualChoice. They were
then dropped unceremoniously December 31, 1999.
Mr. Speaker, I urge every Member of Congress to oppose this fatally
flawed bill. It is unfair to Medicare beneficiaries.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, this conference report underscores the
importance of working together, Democrats and Republicans, to get
things done. I listened to the distinguished Speaker. There are some
good things in this bill where we worked together. The problem is that
the Republican leadership has used the fatally flawed partisan process
in order to bring this bill to the floor. When you only work with half
the Members, half the Nation is left out on the bill that is before us.
The problem is, there is too much that is not in this bill or is
wrong in this bill. It is inadequate on school construction. We could
do a lot better on that. You spend too much money on health insurance
breaks for those who already have health insurance and not enough on
those who do not have health insurance. We can do better than that. You
have left out the vaccine research credit which is so important to the
health of our Nation. And you have left out the Lou Gehrig's disease,
modernizing it so people who suffer from that disease can qualify for
Medicare benefits.
{time} 1600
We go on and on and on. If you would have brought the Democrats into
the process, we could have a bill we all could be proud of and support.
Unfortunately, we should follow the President's advice. He is going to
veto it.
I urge my colleagues to vote against the conference report.
Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to say that my
understanding is that major provider associations, including the
hospitals and the home health agencies, support this bill. It is not
surprising, considering it adds $28 billion back into Medicare.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
McCrery).
Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of good things in this package, many of
which were, in fact, put together with bipartisan work and support. I
was in on a lot of the meetings on the Medicare provisions with
Democrats talking about how to best put this together. I was in on some
meetings with some Democrats on some tax provisions.
[[Page H11246]]
One of the largest sections of the tax bill that is included in this
bill was put together by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), the last speaker, working
together, bipartisan. So, please, do not try to make it look like this
is something that is one-sided, put together only by Republicans. It is
not.
Let me just say something about the Medicare+Choice. First of all, it
is not half of the spending in this bill, it is about 25 percent of the
spending in this bill. With the interactions it gets up close to one-
third. But if you go back, Republican or Democrat, look at your mail,
what do your seniors want? They want the Medicare HMOs to give them
prescription drugs, to give them choices. It is no surprise we put
money into that program to help them out.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. McDermott).
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, as we consider the Lott-Hastert grab bag
bill today, I appreciated the fact that the Speaker came on to the
floor, because he is the only person who could possibly have any idea
what is in this.
Now, what we hear is people saying, well, there is this thing that
one committee did, and there is that thing that one committee did, and
there is this thing that another did, and everybody should vote for it,
because one of those things might be in here. But there is nobody here
who has the least idea what is in this.
They put five bills in yesterday, the conference report says the
minimum wage bill, taxpayer relief bill, the Medicaid-Medicare and ship
benefit improvement bill, the pain relief bill and the small business
bill. They dropped them in yesterday, rolled them together, tied them
with a knot and brought them out here and said, vote for them; we have
got to go home.
Now, the public policy that is produced by this stuff is what
happened in the BBA bill in 1997. The reason we are out here fixing the
program of Medicare again is because you did that bill the same way.
This bill has the bill that is going to destroy our overseas trade if
we do not get it right. But the chairman of the committee, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), who I do not always agree with, but
I agree with him on the process, there should have been Committee on
Ways and Means people in that conference committee looking at what got
rolled into this 960 page pile of legislation.
Now, if you take any one of these issues, the fact you cannot find
anything in all this money to do anything about prescription
medications, but you can find some money to help the drug companies
push the Justice Department away from fixing price problems that they
have got and discovered in the law, is, in my view, silly and unfair to
the American people.
I urge my colleagues to vote against it. The President will veto it.
We will have a bill.
Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Washington (Ms. Dunn).
Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, the average woman spends 11 years out of the
workforce to raise children, and it is often very tough for her to
accumulate enough retirement savings to make a difference. We believe
this is unfair.
I will tell you what is in this bill. This bill allows women over the
age of 50 to contribute up to 50 percent more to their retirement plan
in order to make up for those years out of the workforce. This will
make it possible for a working mother to build a nurturing relationship
with her child and achieve financial independence in retirement.
Part of financial security in retirement means having health care
that is affordable and dependable. Unfortunately, the funding for
Medicare+Choice has made it tough to offer coverage in certain regions
of the country.
In my State, nearly 30,000 seniors were sent letters by their health
plans alerting them to the fact that insufficient reimbursements for
Medicare+Choice is forcing them out of the State. The President is not
helping our seniors by attacking managed care plans. In Washington
State, tens of thousands of seniors enjoy the benefits of their health
care plans and are worried about losing this option. We help in this
bill.
I urge my colleagues to boost retirement savings for women and
protect health care choices for seniors.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).
Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2614.
This legislation is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
For example, by not including the Rangel-Johnson school construction
tax credit provisions, this bill fails to leverage $24.8 billion in
financing for school construction and renovation. Studies have shown
that school construction costs over the next 10 years will total
upwards of $125 billion. The Federal Government currently funds local
transportation projects, local airport projects, as well as prisons and
local economic development projects. Why, why is it suddenly
unreasonable to assist our schools with this most important project,
ensuring a safe learning environment for our children?
We can do better than this. I urge my colleagues to vote no on H.R.
2614.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that I would have
been able to vote on a number of the provisions in this bill in a clean
way: Minimum wage, obviously needed; new market initiatives, obviously
needed. As a matter of fact, there are many good features to this bill.
But, unfortunately, it is like a wagon that has been overloaded. When
you try and put too much on it at one time, it gets stuck in the mud. I
am afraid that this bill, unfortunately, is stuck in the mud. It has
got a lot of good things in it, and, as we approach Halloween, it seems
to me that we have got a lot of good items, but we have got too many
tricks and not enough treats.
I hope we can come back with some clean bills that we could vote on
that would be in the best interests of the American people, and I would
urge my colleagues to vote no on this bill.
Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Shaw).
(Mr. SHAW asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I am particularly proud of and want to talk about
several provisions that are in this bill. One would improve Medicare
benefits to fight breast cancer and cervical cancer. My digital
mammography provision gives women access to brand new breast cancer
screening technology. The pap test provision makes tests more frequent
so that cervical cancer can be found early and treated successfully.
Mr. Speaker, it is extremely important to focus on the education
provisions of this bill. I know firsthand that we face a public school
construction crisis. My congressional district runs through three of
the fastest growing school districts in the country. In Palm Beach
County, the student population has more than doubled just since 1985.
Broward County, the fifth largest school district in the country, has
240,000 students and 210 schools. Miami-Dade County is the fourth
largest school district, with over 350,000 students. It averages an
increase of 10,000 new students each and every year.
I am particularly excited about the portion of this legislation that
incorporates my legislation which I have sponsored, along with Florida
Senator Bob Graham, the Public School Construction Partnership. These
provisions empower local districts to use innovative, cost-effective
ways to finance new schools and repair aging ones.
Miami Beach Senior High is a prime example of a public school that
should benefit from this legislation. Its aging facilities diminish the
education opportunities for the 3,000 students and teachers who occupy
the premises. Many of these are the same buildings that were there when
I was in high school.
In order to encourage private sector participation and avoid debt
capacity problems for localities, this legislation would permit tax
exempt private activity bonds for investors willing to join public-
private partnerships to construct new public schools or renovate
existing ones. The partnerships would use the bonds to borrow funds for
construction and ownership of the school facilities. The facilities
would then be leased to the public school systems,
[[Page H11247]]
who would operate the facilities with their own teachers and
principals. At the end of the lease term, the facilities would be
transferred back to the school system without additional cost.
A greater use of public-private partnerships would allow states and
local communities to accelerate school construction projects at
significant savings by giving private sector incentives to help meet
new construction and renovation needs.
Rather federalizing public school construction, these less costly
provisions will allow local school districts to decide what is best for
their students.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, this tax bill is a true Halloween witch's
brew; a heavy dose of money for big, unaccountable HMOs that rely on
the bean counters to interfere in the doctor-patient relationship, a
tiny little pinch of relief for taxpayers, together with the flavoring
of a little eye of old Newt's threatening government shutdown for good
measure.
You can comb through all the pages of this bill, and one thing you
will not find is one cent of marriage penalty tax relief. You can comb
through these pages and you will not find one cent of estate tax relief
for small family businesses and farms.
This last minute conglomeration is devoid of meaningful relief for
ordinary American families. But this partisan measure showers benefits
on the healthy and the wealthy. It gives billions to the same HMOs that
have a stranglehold on this Congress and are blocking a patients' bill
of rights. They throw in $100 million every year to benefit the tobacco
industry in its export of death and disease.
Mr. Speaker, no marriage penalty relief; not a cent for marriage
penalty, but $24 billion in tax benefits are included to fund the two-
martini lunch.
Mr. Speaker, here is a bill that even the chairman of the Committee
on Ways and Means, the Republican chair, is going to vote against. What
better symbol of a Republican Congress that can best be called failure,
flop, and fiasco.
Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Boehner).
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I find it unfortunate that we are having the type of
debate here on the floor today that we are, because the fact is that 96
percent of the words in the bill that we are considering have already
been voted on in the House and been passed overwhelmingly in a
bipartisan way, and for the gentleman from Texas to refer to the fact
that there is no marriage penalty relief in here, nor any estate tax
relief in here, is the height of hypocrisy, given the fact that the
President of the United States decided to veto both of those bills.
But, Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this conference report,
and especially the inclusion of the Retirement Savings and Pension
Coverage Act, based extensively on a bipartisan package of reforms
developed by my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), and my
colleague from the other side of the aisle, the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Cardin).
I think this is practical common sense legislation that will lead to
a safer, more secure and more prosperous retirement for millions of
American working men and women.
ERISA is the source of our Nation's pension laws, and it was passed
25 years ago when the American economy was dominated by large
corporations and most Americans relied on pensions from those
corporations for their retirement. Well, today we are a Nation of small
employers and individual investors. Nearly one out of every two
American families has invested in the stock market, more than three
times the percentage 25 years ago.
{time} 1615
This bill today helps workers maximize their retirement opportunities
by expanding small business retirement plans, allowing workers to save
and invest more, and cutting the red tape that has hamstrung employers
who want to establish pension plans for their employees.
The basis for these pension reforms in this conference report is H.R.
1102. It was reported out of the Committee on Education and the
Workforce on July 14, 1999, on a bipartisan voice vote; and we believe
on a bipartisan basis this is a very good bill. I urge my colleagues to
support it.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Levin).
(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, this debate is baffling. The Speaker has come
here and said we need to be brought together, but he chooses a course
that divides us. There is a lot of talk by Republicans, including Mr.
Bush, about bipartisan, but this action is strictly partisan.
What went into this bill and what was left out was decided completely
within Republican ranks and its inner sanctum. Tell me of your meetings
with the President to decide on this package. Tell me of your meetings
with the minority leadership in the House or the Senate. There were not
any. Instead, we have decisions made inner sanctum and very much with
special interests in mind.
Mr. Speaker, 187 pages of this Medicare and Medicaid bill never went
through committee, was never voted on the House floor. So here we go
again, forcing a presidential veto. There will be another chance to act
on the BBA after the President forces us into the right course.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the
bill and the way it has been brought to this floor. I want specifically
to talk about protecting the privacy of American people.
Last night, under the cloak of darkness, the Republican leadership
added to this bill an amendment that would have allowed confidential
Census information to go to the CBO, the Congressional Budget Office.
Let me tell my colleagues that this past year in every State and
community, this poster was up, assuring the American people of their
privacy: No INS. No FBI. No CIA. No IRS. We should add no Republican
majority.
The Secretary of Commerce, Secretary Mineta, has a very strong
objection. Mr. Speaker, I will place his objection and veto threat in
the Record.
Mr. Speaker, I recently just spoke to Mr. Crippen, the head of CBO,
who tells me that after seeing the Secretary's objection, he has
decided to proceed with attempting to get the provision he wants out.
He says he will remove it.
Since Mr. Crippen is not a Member of Congress, I would hope that
someone in the Republican leadership could assure me that what he is
saying is correct and that my colleagues will not add this provision to
any other vehicle going through Congress that is a violation of the
privacy rights of the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I ask if there is any assurance from anyone in the
Republican leadership.
The Secretary of Commerce,
Washington, DC, October 25, 2000.
Dear Member of Congress: As you may know, the Congressional
Budget Office (CBO) is currently seeking legislative language
which would amend Title 13, the Census Act, to allow CBO to
acquire confidential information collected from the American
people in several census surveys.
I am writing to express my strong opposition to any attempt
to force the disclosure of personal census information
currently protected by the confidentiality provisions of
Title 13. If this proposal is adopted by the Congress, I will
recommend a Presidential veto of the legislation.
The American people place a tremendous trust in the Census
Bureau and the Department of Commerce when they provide us
with the personal information collected by these surveys.
They do so, in overwhelming numbers, because the Census
Bureau and the Commerce Department have assured them that
their privacy will be protected by the provisions of Title
13. The critical work of dozens of government agencies could
not be accomplished without the public's voluntary
cooperation with these surveys.
The change to census confidentiality contemplated by CBO
has been developed behind closed doors, at the 11th hour of a
legislative session, with no public hearings and no
opportunity for public comment or congressional review.
The American people are already gravely concerned about the
privacy of their personal information. The adoption of these
changes with no public debate runs the very serious risk of
undermining the public's confidence in the privacy act of
census information. Should that happen, it should surprise
none of us that the public's willingness to
[[Page H11248]]
cooperate with census surveys will rapidly decline.
As the CBO Director obliquely points out in his October 24,
2000 letter to Congress on this issue, there have been times
in our history when census information has not been protected
as it should have been. My personal knowledge of this
incident is somewhat less than oblique. Director Crippen's
reference is to the Census Bureau's assistance, at the
beginning of World War II, for the War Department's efforts
to locate Japanese Americans in the western United States and
confine us to internment camps. My family and I were among
the 120,000 Japanese Americans forced from our homes and
interned.
I fail to see why this history should make the Commerce
Department, or the Congress, less concerned about the
confidentiality of census information.
Over the course of the 58 years since that incident, the
Census Bureau and the Department of Commerce have built a
relationship of trust with the American people, many of whom
are profoundly distrustful of government. We have promised
them that their privacy would be protected, and that personal
information about them would be subjected to the most
stringent controls. I do not believe we should alter that
commitment, in law or in practice, without a full and open
discussion.
As a former Member of Congress, and a former Member of the
House Budget Committee, I take CBO's work very seriously. I
have the highest respect for the professionalism and
integrity of the men and women who make up that agency.
However, I must restate the strongest opposition of the
Department of Commerce to any effort to alter the privacy
protections currently provided by statute for personal census
information without a full opportunity for careful
congressional review and public comment.
Sincerely yours,
Norman Y. Mineta.
Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Watts).
Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Talent) for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I heard just a couple of minutes ago that the marriage
tax relief and death tax relief was not in this bill, and I would say
to that give me a physical break.
The President of the United States vetoed both of those pieces of
legislation that would bring about fairness for small business owners
and allowed them to keep their business and not give it to the
government and also allow married couples to get some relief and not
penalize them for being married.
But be that it as it may, H.R. 2614, Mr. Speaker, is a good piece of
legislation. It has Medicare adjustments for rural hospitals, for home
health agencies. There is the pension reform that allows people to save
more money for themselves for retirement; that is good for working
people, for housewives.
My wife stays at home. She is a housewife. She can save more money.
Brownfields relief, the American Community Renewal Act, in which the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Talent), myself, the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Davis) have worked very hard on to target underserved
communities, poor communities, rural communities for economic
development, for homeownership, for opportunity in these underserved
communities.
This has the black farmers piece of legislation. The USDA
discriminated against black farmers, and these farmers got a
settlement. There is an element of this legislation that says these
farmers should not have to pay taxes on that settlement, because the
USDA then would be benefiting from their injustice. I mean we can go on
and on.
This is a good piece of legislation. I would encourage my colleagues
not to turn our backs on the black farmers. Do not turn our back on
these underserved communities. Do not turn our back on people that
would love to save more money for themselves. Do not turn our back on
these people.
Let us pass this legislation. I urge a strong yes vote for H.R. 2614.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Dingell).
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, this is a bad bill. It is going to be
vetoed. It ought to be defeated. Today, we are voting on a conference
report which provides significant relief only to a favored few health
care providers from cuts enacted in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.
The majority has turned its back on the bipartisan Committee on
Commerce bill, choosing to strip out Democratic priorities and is
rewarding its fat-cat industry friends instead.
This should come as no surprise, though, that the Republicans would
choose to devote billions to the insurance companies and to the
wealthy, leaving working Americans, disabled children, seniors and
immigrants with little, if anything, at all.
The Republican leadership has spent all year fighting its Medicare
prescription drug benefits, against the strong enforceable Patients'
Bill of Rights, and against meaningful expansions of health care for
working families.
Why should we expect any less at this hour? At every turn, the
Republican leadership has blocked meaningful health care legislation;
yet, now they are passing a bill that gives only massive tax cuts for
the rich, without any financing for Medicare prescription drug coverage
that seniors desperately need.
It gives billions of dollars for HMOs, more than one-third of the
money, $30 billion over 10 years going to HMOs, with no guarantees that
seniors will see increased access to plans or increased benefits.
It gives billions of dollars for tax deductions for health insurance
that will erode existing employer coverage and will not reduce the
number of uninsured.
The facts are clear. This is Republican pork, a rich reward to
undeserving fat-cat friends at the expense of beneficiaries and
vulnerable providers. No wonder this was done in the dead of night.
Democrats have fought, will continue to fight, for a balanced bill
that fairly allocates money for beneficiaries, providers, and HMOs.
We believe in making sure that Medicare is always there for seniors
and that in the absence of universal coverage, there is always a strong
safety net that will provide high-quality health care to the uninsured
and those of low income.
If this is not bad enough, not only has the Republican Congress
failed to pass a real Patients' Bill of Rights, but they have also
passed something else, what they are calling a Medicare Patients' Bill
of Rights. It is as phony as a $3 bill and does not have any real
protections that are needed.
I know the real Patients' Bill of Rights. I wrote it, along with my
Republican colleagues, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) and the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) and others. It passed this House by an
overwhelming bipartisan majority.
This is no Patients' Bill of Rights nor Medicare. In fact, the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) and I wrote a letter to the
Speaker urging him to delete it. This is a Republican provision which
puts our seniors at risk and at the mercy of health plans.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote no on this shameful piece
of legislation, so that we can have either an opportunity to sit down
in a bipartisan basis and craft a balanced bill before or after the
veto that the President is assuredly going to give and that will
reflect the important bipartisan priorities for seniors, low-income
families and children and will serve the interests of this country.
Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute for three points.
Number one, there is no Census language in the bill, so Members
should know the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) was incorrect
in her statement.
Second, as much as I respect the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Dingell), I am not going to allow the bill to be slandered in that way.
This bill contains provisions which will ensure health care for small
business people that we have been fighting for on a bipartisan basis
for years. It contains provisions which will ensure pensions for small
business people and their employers that we have been fighting for. It
includes the best piece of antipoverty legislation this Congress has
passed in a generation.
Mr. Speaker, I stood next to the President of the United States at
the White House and we talked about the importance of this. It means
jobs and homeownership and community policing for poor people.
I will tell my colleagues, I am leaving here, Mr. Speaker, so maybe
it does not matter to me and it does not matter to other people. I do
not care who is
[[Page H11249]]
consulted. I do not care whether the protocols of the Committee on Ways
and Means were respected.
This bill means real things to real vulnerable people, and we ought
to pass it and the President ought to sign it.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Price).
(Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to
this bill and to the reckless way the House is proceeding.
Mr. Speaker, this bill fails to give either high-growth or
economically disadvantaged areas the help they need to stretch their
school bond dollars and to undertake desperately needed school
construction.
This bill provides needed increases in Medicare reimbursement, but it
directs those reimbursements disproportionately to HMOs with no
guarantees that they will pass along the savings or that they will stay
in our communities. In the meantime, our hospitals are shortchanged,
particularly teaching hospitals and hospitals serving large numbers of
indigent patients. Funding for rural health care, home health care and
hospice care also falls short.
The Republican leadership could not even find a way to shorten or
eliminate the waiting period for Medicare eligibility for victims of
Lou Gehrig's disease, despite the fact that 282 Members of this House
have cosponsored a bill to do so.
Mr. Speaker, there are good things in this bill: a tax credit for
adoptive parents, a minimum wage increase, an increase in IRA
contribution limits, an accelerated deduction for small business health
insuance costs. But to bury these beneficial initiatives in a measure
that in so many respects falls short is reckless and irresponsible.
Mr. Speaker, with a week-and-a-half between today and the election,
we have no time for reckless games. The responsible way to proceed on
issues of this gravity--taxes, health care, school construction, small
business--is for the Republican leaders of this Congress to negotiate
in good faith with the minority and the president to reach a compromise
that meets our country's needs. This should have been done weeks ago.
Our best course now is to defeat this bill and to bring a new bill,
adequate to the challenges before us, to the floor promptly.
Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).
(Mr. BILIRAKIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, in 1997, Congress courageously acted to
save Medicare from bankruptcy as a part of the Balanced Budget Act.
However, the real-life effects of that law were far greater than
expected or intended. The legislation before us today will restore $28
billion in essential health care funding for providers and the patients
they serve.
It will also increase preventive health benefits for seniors,
including screenings for glaucoma and colon cancer, medical nutrition
therapy, and Pap smear screenings and pelvic exams. I was pleased to
coauthor provisions of the original 1997 balanced budget law, which
expanded Medicare coverage or preventive health services. By diagnosing
conditions in a timely manner, we can improve the quality of life for
beneficiaries and ultimately reduce the costs of treatment for many
patients.
The President has threatened to veto this critical measure that does
so much to help America's seniors. He has expressed concern regarding
the amount of funding provided for Medicare+Choice plans. But most of
us have heard from an overwhelming number of seniors in our districts
who support the Medicare+Choice plans, and who want Congress to make
sure that they are adequately funded.
This legislation does just that, and it spends approximately $6
billion for it, not $30 billion, not one-half of that, but 22 percent
of the total of $28 billion.
Last month, Members of my Committee on Commerce worked on a
bipartisan basis, passed unanimously, I would remind everyone, to
assemble a package of relief for both providers and Medicare
beneficiaries.
The measure before us incorporates many of those provisions to help
beneficiaries, as well as hospitals, community health centers, skilled
nursing facilities, academic health centers, home health providers,
hospice providers, and Medicare+Choice plans to be sure to help save
for seniors their option for a Medicare managed care plan.
I look forward, Mr. Speaker, to passing this important legislation
today, and I urge the President to sign it into law.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
the time.
Mr. Speaker, from a transportation perspective, there are good
reasons to oppose this bill, but the most significant is repeal of the
4.3 cent fuel tax for the railroads. That action goes against the
spirit of the agreement worked out between rail labor and rail
management on a railroad retirement benefit.
The parties agreed to divide up equally between management and labor
the benefits of a payroll tax reduction.
{time} 1630
Our committee, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and
the Committee on Ways and Means crafted a bill, H.R. 4844, that
reflected this agreement. Under the bill, the payroll taxes paid by
railroads would be reduced $4 billion over 10 years. Railroad retirees
and survivors would get roughly the same amount in improved benefits.
It was a win for all parties.
During Committee on Ways and Means consideration of the bill, there
was an amendment added to repeal the 4.3 cent fuel tax. That would have
upset the balance of benefits agreed to by management and labor and
would have unraveled the unified rail coalition. The Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, on a bipartisan basis said, we would
not bring the bill to the floor with this provision in it. The
offending provisions was stripped prior to floor consideration, and the
bipartisan railroad retirement reform legislation passed the House
overwhelmingly by a vote of 391 to 25.
Now, we have the fuel tax repeal in here. That is a windfall benefit
to the railroads with no commensurate benefit to rail workers and
retirees. That is not fair. That is not right. That unravels the
agreement that we put together, that labor and management voluntarily
put together. We should not pass this legislation with that provision
in. On this issue alone, the bill deserves to go down.
Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Portman).
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I know this is a political year, and I know
that not everybody got everything in this legislation that they wanted
in this legislation, but is that a reason to vote against the
legislation?
Look at this bill. It expands health care coverage for all Americans;
provides very important help for long-term care; increases the Medicare
reimbursement to our hospitals, to our nursing homes, to our home
health agencies $28 billion over 5 years and $75 billion over 10 years.
It helps our schools to construct more schools. It provides computers
to the classrooms, encourages adoption. It helps create jobs in our
poorest inner cities and rural areas. It gives small businesses needed
tax relief so that they can provide health care insurance, so that they
can create more jobs. This is a good bill.
Let me focus on one provision that I am particularly proud of that
this Congress passed by a vote of 401 to 25, only a few short months
ago, totally bipartisan. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) and I
worked on this for the last 3 years together. The gentleman from
California (Mr. Gallegly) and others on our side of the aisle worked so
hard on it. It provides retirement security for all Americans. Half of
America's workforce, 70 million people, have no pension coverage at all
today, and everybody agrees on the right, on the left, and the center
that we need to increase savings in our economy so that we can be sure
that the economic prosperity that we are now enjoying continues. This
legislation addresses these issues head on.
It does 3 things. It lets everybody save more in an IRA, moving it
from $2,000 a year to $5,000 a year. It lets people save more in their
401(k)s. Mr. Speaker, 42 million Americans that we
[[Page H11250]]
represent now have 401(k)s. It lets everybody put more aside for their
own retirement, in traditional pension plans.
Second, it allows rollover of pension plans from job to job. In our
increasingly mobile society, that is very important to the workers we
represent. Finally, it streamlines and modernizes our pension laws to
reduce the costs, the burdens and the liabilities, particularly to
small business, so that more and more Americans will be able to enjoy a
secure retirement. This is good stuff.
Mr. President, I cannot believe you are thinking of vetoing this
legislation. Do not stand in the way of retirement security.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this bill precisely for the
reasons the gentleman who just spoke says we ought to support it.
There is no death tax relief in this bill, and after spending most of
the year in here knowing that we could very well have a death tax
relief for small businesses, it is not in this bill. There is no
marriage tax penalty relief anywhere in this bill, and we spent
considerable time talking about that.
This bill has the wrong priorities on Medicare relief. I represent a
district that is very rural. My rural hospitals need considerably more
help than what those who wrote the provisions in this bill are
suggesting. The bill also undermines welfare reform by dropping the
provision extending transitional Medicaid. We are increasing
discretionary spending at a record rate, cutting taxes by $300 billion
without dealing with the estate tax, marriage penalty, or enacting
other legislation to eliminate the national debt; and it is the wrong
thing to do today.
Mr. Speaker, we must recognize we have to set priorities. The
priorities of the majority are not the priorities of this Member. I
urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.
I oppose this conference report because it has the wrong priorities
in using our limited resources.
My priorities are eliminating the national debt, providing relief
from the estate tax and marriage penalty, beginning a National Energy
Policy, and giving assistance to rural hospitals and other health care
providers. This bill does not address these priorities.
If this bill is enacted on top of the legislation already passed this
year, we will have used nearly $1 trillion on the project surplus over
the next ten years this year.
According to the bipartisan Concord Coalition, if discretionary
spending continues to increase at the same rate is has over the last
three years under a Republican Congress for the next ten years, nearly
two-thirds of the projected $2.2 on-budget surplus will be wiped out.
Under one scenario, there would be just $350 billion in surpluses
available for other priorities after we take Medicare off-budget next
year.
The cost of this tax bill, when combined with the telephone excise
tax bill, will consume nearly $300 billion of the surplus over the next
ten years, not counting interest costs.
Enacting a tax cut as presented will consume virtually all of the
surplus available for tax cuts, leaving no room to address other
priorities.
No room to deal with estate tax.
We have bipartisan support for meaningful estate tax relief which
would exempt all estates less than $4 million from the estate tax and
reduce rates by 20 percent immediately.
Nearly half of the Democratic Caucus has cosponsored an estate tax
bill that would do that, but the Wall Street Journal reported that the
Republican leadership has rejected that proposal because they would
rather have a political issue for the campaign instead of accomplishing
something on estate tax.
No room to deal with marriage penalty relief.
This bill excludes many important items that were included in earlier
tax bills:
All of the tax incentives for domestic oil and gas producers that
were included in the Senate bill were excluded for some reason. With
all of the talk about the need for a national energy policy, I don't
understand why the leadership would oppose efforts to help our domestic
oil and gas industry.
An important provision for farmers which clarify that CRP payments
are not subject to self-employment taxes were dropped from the bill.
The bipartisan legislation on Individual Development Accounts which I
cosponsored with Representative Joe Pitts, which would help low-income
families save money and move into the middle class, were dropped for
some reason.
While I support the increases in IRA limits to help middle and upper
income families save for retirement, I do not understand why the tax
credits to help low income workers who most need assistance save for
their retirement were dropped.
This bill has the wrong priorities on the Medicare relief package.
This bill shortchanges the critical needs of rural hospitals, home
health agencies and other health care providers.
The bill also undermines welfare reform by dropping the provision
extending transitional Medicaid, which ensures families moving from
welfare to work do not lose health insurance for their children.
We are increasing discretionary spending at a record rate and cutting
taxes by $300 billion without dealing with the estate tax, marriage
penalty or enacting a plan to eliminate our national debt.
Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Thomas).
(Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, we are here today with a Presidential veto
threat, and I am here to address that provision in the Medicare and
Medicaid area, because in the President's message, he said, as several
of my Democratic colleagues have said, that the bill fails to attach
accountability provisions to the health maintenance organizations.
I am sorry to tell my friends who made that statement that they are
simply flat-out wrong. I hope they did not do it for political
purposes. I hope they did it because they were either uninformed or
misinformed.
On page 143 in the bill, on lines 17 and 18, the language contained
therein is the language supplied to us by the administration in terms
of their request for accountability. Now, it seems strange with all of
the arguments that there has not been much discussion between the
administration and those of us that are charged with the responsibility
as the majority to work with the minority, which we did in the
Committee on Ways and Means subcommittee, by unanimously passing out
the provision. It says, any of the dollars in this bill sent to
Medicare HMOs can only be used to reduce premiums, cost-sharing,
enhance the benefits of the beneficiaries, or utilize the stabilization
fund. Every dollar that is added must be converted to benefits for
individuals.
The President also says that there are other health care providers
that are shorted by the basis of the HMO provisions. Let us remember
that this is supposed to be not always for providers, it is supposed to
be for beneficiaries. It is supposed to be for people in trouble.
Organizations surrounding that have all written us letters. More than
four dozen associations have said, we like what you are doing, we
support what you are doing, we hope Members vote for it, we hope the
President does not veto it. Organizations such as the American Cancer
Society, the American Dietetic Association, Juvenile Justice
Foundation, the National Kidney Foundation, the National Multiple
Sclerosis Society, these are the people that are urging us to vote for
the bill. They want us to vote for the bill.
The President's veto threat says that other providers have been
shorted because so much money has been given to the Medicare HMOs. Then
why in the world is the Long Term Hospital Association endorsing this,
urging members to vote for it? Why is the Federation of American
Hospitals, the National Association of Childrens Hospitals, the
National Association of Long Term Hospitals, the National Association
of Psychiatric Health Hospitals, the National Association of Urban
Critical Access Hospitals, and the one usually held up, the American
Hospital Association, says in a letter dated today, and I quote,
American Hospital Association says, ``We are urging Members to vote in
favor of this legislation and have recommended that the President not
veto the legislation.''
The other providers say, vote for the bill and pass it. The
associations that are going to benefit, the American Red Cross and
others, say vote for it and pass it.
Mr. Speaker, I am just curious as to who these unnamed folks are that
somehow are being benefited in here. Believe me, this is good
legislation. Follow these people. Vote for it, pass it, and the
President should not veto it.
[[Page H11251]]
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation.
Instead of helping those that faced the real cuts in 1997, what our
Republican colleagues have done is they have gift wrapped an early
Christmas present for the same HMOs that continue to reduce coverage
for seniors and in many cases drop their coverage altogether.
Unlike hospitals, home health, hospice providers, Medicare HMOs did
not have their funding cut in 1997, yet this past year, we invested
$1.4 billion in Medicare+Choice and the Medicare HMOs returned the
favor by dropping nearly 1 million seniors, 56,000 in my State of
Connecticut alone. And guess what? There is no meaningful
accountability in this piece of legislation. These folks can pull the
rug out from under people after a year. That was not changed at all in
this piece of legislation.
I say to my colleagues, they got $1.4 billion, talk about bang for
the buck, and they let all of these people adrift. The Republican bill
would now give the Medicare HMOs 41 percent of the money in this bill,
$10 billion. It is wrong, it is unfair, it does not help those who need
it the most.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi).
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am rising to oppose this legislation. I
want to recognize the extraordinary leadership of the ranking member of
the Committee on Small Business (Ms. Velazquez), and I urge my
colleagues to oppose this legislation.
This bill is sadly deficient because it misses opportunities. It
misses an opportunity to help our health care providers secure benefit
improvements in Medicare and Medicaid that would increase the access of
millions of Americans to the health care they need. Unfortunately, the
Republican leadership has chosen to make HMOs not the beneficiaries the
focus of this flawed legislation.
Another missed opportunity was a bill that passed in bipartisan
fashion out of the Committee on Commerce which would have increased
enrollment in the CHIP and Medicaid, reduce out-of-pocket Medicare
expenses and increase access to health insurance for disabled children
and legal immigrants. It is a stark example of failed leadership.
Another opportunity that is missed is the bipartisan legislation to
provide incentives to private sector biotech and pharmaceutical
companies to accelerate development of vaccines for AIDS, malaria, and
TB.
Mr. Speaker, the biggest missed opportunity is in school
construction. How can we ignore the needs of our children?
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this measure which fails to
provide tax relief to the families and institutions that need it most
and fails to adequately meet our nation's health care needs. At the
heart of the many flaws that are contained in this bill is the refusal
of the Republican leadership to negotiate these measures in a
bipartisan manner.
We are nearly a month into the fiscal year, and the Republican
leadership continues to push forward bills that we all know will be
vetoed because of their refusal to reach across the aisle and
compromise. The American people deserve better leadership and a real
commitment to achieving the important goals of tax relief and improved
access to quality health care.
We are blessed in this country with the finest health care providers
in the world. However, we must not take our good fortune for granted.
The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 initiated several important changes in
reimbursement rates for Medicare and other federally funded health care
programs. Unfortunately, many of these new reimbursement rules resulted
in payment cuts to health care providers that were far greater than
Congress intended. As a result, hospitals, nursing homes, patient care
and academic health centers across the country are suffering.
The refinements passed last year were a start, but they only
addressed a fraction of the losses that the hospitals skilled nursing
facilities that treat our most vulnerable citizens are facing. A recent
report by the Lewin Group estimates that without further relief nearly
60 percent of the nation's hospitals will not be able to cover the
costs of treating Medicare patients by 2004, and in the last two years
170 skilled nursing facilities have filed bankruptcy in California
alone.
Today, we have an important opportunity to help our health care
providers and secure benefit improvements in Medicare and Medicaid that
would increase the access of millions of Americans to the health care
they need. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership has chosen to make
HMOs, not beneficiaries, the focus of this flawed legislation.
Medicare+Choice is an important program, but it is irresponsible to
allocate over a third of the resources in this bill to a program that
serves less than a sixth of our citizens. And to do so without any
accountability measures demonstrates once again that the Republican
leadership is on the side of the insurance industry, not on the side of
patients.
All year long we have been waiting for the Republican leadership to
pass a real patient's bill of rights. When the House and Senate began
the conference on this issue in October 1999 there was an important
decision to be made, would this Congress vote to protect patients or
HMOs? Democrats have been united and clear in our choice. We choose
patients. But the Republican leadership has been just as clear in their
determination to protect their friends in the insurance industry.
Today, they have once again chosen HMOs over patients.
Benefit improvements in Medicare and Medicaid are long overdue, and
ignoring an opportunity to increase enrollment in CHIP and Medicaid,
reduce out-of-pocket Medicare expenses, and increase access to health
insurance for disabled children and legal immigrants is a stark example
of failed leadership.
I am also opposed to a provision that has been included in this bill
which violates the privacy protections that the Census Bureau has
promised the American people. This provision would provide personal
information to the Congressional Budget Office that is given to the
Census Bureau with the understanding that the data will be used solely
for the Census. This year's high response rates to census surveys will
surely decline if that promise is broken.
Among the many important items excluded from H.R. 2614 is bipartisan
legislation to provide incentives to private sector biotech and
pharmaceutical companies to accelerate development of vaccines for
AIDS, malaria, TB and any other disease that kills one million or more
people annually. The Vaccines for the New Millennium Act, which was
developed in collaboration with industry and public health advocates,
creates tax and purchase credits that will increase R&D and expand the
market for new vaccines.
The combined deaths from AIDS, TB, and malaria total over 7 million
each year. Preventive vaccines are our best hope to being these
destructive worldwide epidemics under control. The National Institutes
of Health is doing crucially important vaccine research. But private
sector biotech and pharmaceutical companies have much of the expertise
to develop and produce vaccines, and we must leverage their resources
and encourage the market to work more effectively in order to develop
these vaccines in the near future.
This legislation fails to achieve the tax relief that American
families need and the improvements in access to quality health care
that they deserve. This country deserves better. I urge my colleagues
to vote no on H.R. 2614.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, this is an accumulation of
five bills that were introduced yesterday. It is 960 pages in length. I
can tell my colleagues what my gut tells me, and I am quoting from a
colleague in the Mississippi legislature: There are enough snakes in
this bill that it would take a herpetologist to sort them all out.
We are dealing with people's retirement, and one provision of this
bill would allow the person who is rolling those retirement funds over
to pocket the profits for 60 days. Grandma does not get them, he gets
them, not the person who deserves them, the guy who convinces grandma
that she needs to roll it over. That is just one provision.
There is another provision that on a casual reading of this bill that
I showed to over a dozen Members of Congress and an equal number of
members of the press would have us believe that we get a tax deduction
for paying bribes.
Now, I say to my colleagues, if it is our job to make the tax laws
simpler and more understandable, why on the last day of this session
would we parade out a bill that is going to add 965 pages to the Tax
Code that no one fully comprehends?
Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is referring to the foreign
sales provision of the bill, and that is the administration's
provision.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Foley).
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
[[Page H11252]]
It greatly concerns me to have this bill so maligned, because the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) and I worked so hard to have the
increase for hospitals included in this bill, the inflation update. It
pains me that Senator Kent Conrad and I worked so hard to have rural
health care in this bill. It is in this bill. It pains me to have
Senator Bob Graham from Florida, having worked so hard with me on
preventive health benefits in this bill, to hear this being described
as a partisan bill. It pains me, with the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Wexler) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch), who, we worked
together on HMOs that are leaving our country destabilized to bring
them relief and reform.
Mr. Speaker, I realized this is not about people today, it is about
power. When the President refused to have a public bill signing on a
breast cancer treatment bill at the White House because he was afraid
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio) would get credit for it, who is
running against Mrs. Clinton, I realized it is about power, not people;
I realized it is about politics, not people, and for the other side of
the aisle to decry this bill as some last minute attempt, after we have
worked 2 years on producing this document, shame on them for voting no.
Shame on them.
{time} 1645
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Sherman).
(Mr. SHERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, both parties agree that the tax code should
help school districts issue school bonds and build schools. But this
bill provides only half of the tax credits for school bonds that we
need. It has weasel words on Davis-Bacon, which means we will get
substandard schools built at substandard wages.
Worse yet, it allegedly helps our school districts by dealing with
the arbitrage provisions. It will not build a school on Elm Street. It
will build skyscrapers on Wall Street.
It allows and encourages school boards to take the bond proceeds to
Wall Street and arbitrage them in risky investments. Is that not how
Orange County, California, went bankrupt just a few years ago?
We need provisions that provide tax credits so that school boards can
issue school bonds and have the Federal Government, in effect, pay the
interest on those bonds. What we do not need is a provision that allows
school districts to take bond proceeds, encourages them to delay
construction, and urges them to go play the market.
I know that the bond councils out there dream that they will become
investment bankers, but that is not what school bonds are all about.
Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Weller).
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong support of this
legislation which deserves bipartisan support. I have heard a lot of
claims on both sides about support for expanding IRA's and retirement
savings. It is in this bill.
I hear a lot of claims about support for increasing reimbursements
for our local hospitals and nursing homes and home health care
providers. Well, there is $28 billion worth in this bill.
I hear a lot of claims about support on both sides of the aisle in
support of increasing the minimum wage. We do that in this legislation.
In fact, 98 percent of this bill we voted in favor of already.
Let me point out, there are important provisions that help the little
folks. There is 10 million building tradespeople, cement finishers,
operating engineers, carpenters, laborers, who right now have their
pensions limited because of the section 415. I have had many colleagues
on the other side of the aisle come up and say, ``Are we going to get
it in the bill?'' I hope they will vote for it, because this is their
opportunity to help those 10 million building tradespeople get their
full pension.
I also want to point out that we have tax incentives in here for
brownfields, cleaning up environmental cleanup which allow every
community in the America to benefit from that incentive.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time each side has
remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The gentlewoman from New York
(Ms. Velazquez) has 3\3/4\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Talent) has 2\1/4\ minutes remaining.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of the other side
how many more speakers they have.
Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, we have two more on this side; and I
understand we are closing, so perhaps the gentlewoman from New York
(Ms. Velazquez) could go with a couple of speakers.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I have one more speaker, then I am ready
to close.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).
Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I favor real middle-class tax cuts. I favor tax
cuts which put small businesses on the same footing with large
corporations. I favor pension reform. And I favor Medicare adjustments
to keep small hospitals open.
But I am going to oppose this bill because of the cynical inclusion
of a provision which specifically overturns Oregon's death-with-dignity
law. This was voted on by the people of Oregon, not once, but twice.
What will happen if this bill passes is that things will not play out
in grand chambers like this. Things will not play out in the hospitals
that we are trying to keep open. There will be little rooms across this
country, in Oregon, where the scenes will be played out in small rooms
filled with pain.
If my colleagues want that pain to occur, then vote for this bill. If
my colleagues want to prevent that pain from occurring, if they want
real tax relief, then vote against this bill.
Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of
this bill. I point out to my colleagues that almost every section of it
they have voted for overwhelmingly: the retirement security provisions,
the small business tax relief, the foreign sales section, the community
and renewal provisions, and the health care provisions. They have voted
for it because it is good tax law and it is good for working people.
Let us look at the Medicare section. Do my colleagues realize that
the Medicare provisions came out of the Committee on Ways and Means
Medicare subcommittee with unanimous support?
The Democrats voted for a 4 percent increase for managed care, plus
the proposal of the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman) that those
coming back into the market get a bonus. That is what the professional
folks on your side that are the closest to this issue voted for.
Otherwise, the Medicare section is just like the Committee on Ways
and Means structured it, with some additional provisions from the
Committee on Commerce that enriches, not only Medicaid, but gives
States back that CHIP money for their children's insurance programs and
does something we have all tried to do for a long time, and that is
loosen the definition of ``homebound'' so more money will go to home
care.
That is why all the groups support this, the hospitals, the nursing
homes, the home care providers. My colleagues should support it, too.
This is about the strength of our Medicare system and the providers
that serve them. It is about good tax policy across the board. My
colleagues have voted for it overwhelmingly. Support it today.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to
the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).
(Mrs. JONES of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, the time is short so I wish to focus
my remarks particularly with regard to the small business section of
the bill and encourage my colleagues to vote against it, even though I
wanted to commend the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) for all
the work she has done in this effort.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire if the gentleman
from Missouri has any further speakers.
[[Page H11253]]
Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, the majority leader is going to close on our
behalf.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remaining time to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior).
Mr. BONIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is a giant, gargantuan, enormous hand-out to
the HMOs. At a time when health care costs are bankrupting families all
across America, closing hospital doors throughout this country, 47
percent, 47 percent of the dollars under this Republican bill, under
the Medicare part of this bill, go to the HMOs.
The same HMOs that deny one seeing one's specialist will get $30
billion under this bill over 10 years. The same HMOs who abandoned the
rural areas of this country get $30 billion under this bill. The same
HMOs who left stranded a million seniors in this country over the last
year will get $30 billion under this bill. The same HMOs that will not
allow one to go to the nearest emergency room because of cost will get
$30 billion under this bill.
But it is not enough that the Republicans would turn their backs on
the hospitals and the nursing homes and the home health care agencies,
they want to transfer $30 billion to the HMOs. It is not enough that
they would do that; but on top of that, they started this Congress, we
started this Congress with the hope that we would get the simplest of a
Patients' Bill of Rights. Of course that has been abandoned.
So what we have here is no Patients' Bill of Rights for our seniors,
for our mothers and our fathers and our children. What we are ending up
with in the Congress is a huge, enormous $30 billion gift, Christmas
present, call it what you want, for the HMOs at the expense of the
other providers who are struggling to care for our families.
The President will veto this bill. The President should veto this
bill. We will stay here, and we will fight as long as it takes for the
hospitals, for the nursing homes, and for the caregivers of the
American families, those people who American families depend on.
I urge my colleagues to vote no on this bill and send a very clear
message that this Congress has been a failure when it comes to health
care, especially with respect to providing for our families through the
proper channels and not through the HMO giveaway.
Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Velazquez) for her many kindnesses and her powerful advocacy of her
views and the graciousness in the times we have served together on the
Committee on Small Business. I want to thank the gentlewoman.
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield the remaining time to the
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the majority leader.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I guess I am a little confused by all the protests I
hear about this bill. It has been suggested that maybe we did not
consult enough with the White House or perhaps other Members of the
Congress other than the Republicans in the House. Let me assure my
colleagues, we have talked about that.
This bill, Mr. Speaker, provides $245 billion in tax relief over the
next 10 years, a figure that I personally agreed to with the Secretary
of the Treasury on behalf of the President. That would be $11.5 billion
impacting the first year, this fiscal year. I personally agreed to that
figure with the Secretary of the Treasury as he acted on behalf of the
President. That allows us to keep our 90 percent pledge to pay down 90
percent of the budget surplus in debt reduction.
Then as we proceeded in our discussions with the White House, we
reminded them that we wanted to put together a bill that had proven
standing by virtue of the votes taken in the House.
We started off with the bipartisan Portman-Cardin bill that had
already been voted in this House by a vote of 401 to 25, virtually all
of us on that bill. Very little change was made with that, and only
those little minor changes that were agreed to by the White House and
in consultation with the authors of the bill, a Republican and a
Democrat, and other interested parties.
We went on, and we included minimum wage, the top priority of the
Democrats, and attended that with a small business wage package that
attended it when it left the House. That part of the package passed
with a large bipartisan vote.
We added then a foreign sales corporation fix. It had passed the
House by 314 votes, 114 of which were Democrats, wanted by the White
House as a top priority.
Then we included community renewal. That passed the House by 394
votes and was the product of what was agreement between the President
of the United States and the Speaker of the House as they toured the
country, talking about what they wanted to do to help people in these
communities that did not seem to keep pace with the prosperity of
America and all these wonderful ways. It was directly negotiated by the
White House with the Speaker of the House; 394 us voted for it.
Maybe it is not, then, these major component parts that bother the
folks that now say they want to vote no. Maybe it is the fact that we
give a long-term tax credit, tax deduction, asked for by the White
House, given by us out of consideration for those loving children that
take their parents into their households and take care of them in their
old age. It does not seem a big thing to do. But I have to tell my
colleagues rich kids do not need that, but we love it. We love it for
those young men and women with their own families that care for mom and
dad in their old age.
Maybe my colleagues all object to the health insurance tax deduction
that would give the waitress in the corner restaurant down here the
same consideration of tax code as she struggles to buy her health
insurance as is given to a CEO that has his insurance provided to him
by his employer. Maybe my colleagues do not think that is fair to give
that waitress a tax deduction for what she pays for health insurance.
Perhaps my colleagues are upset about the adoption tax credit that
would enable more families, particularly more low- and marginal-income
families, to take more children into their families and love them.
Perhaps my colleagues would rather see the children out in the cold.
Maybe that does not bother them.
I saw the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the ranking Democrat
on the Committee on Agriculture, down here complaining. Maybe it was
the farm savings accounts that give farmers encouragement and
assistance as they save in the good years to help themselves through
the bad years. Maybe that is what my colleagues object to. The White
House liked that.
{time} 1700
Or perhaps it is the school construction provisions that first stops
this immoral taxation of the meager earnings that a school district has
on their bonds while construction is underway, and then goes on to in
fact give further tax deductions and consideration to communities that
want to issue bonds to build schools or renovate schools. The White
House asked for that. Perhaps my Democrat colleagues in the House
disagree with the White House and would rather not have that.
Or perhaps maybe my colleagues' objections are that while we do not
give them that, we at the same time increase for so many of these
school districts their production costs beyond the point where it does
them any good to have this benefit under the tax law by virtue of some
sop they want for their labor friends that finance their campaigns.
Maybe the things that bother my Democrat colleagues is the tax credit
we gave to people who want to provide computers to students in schools
and libraries. I do not know what it is that bothers my colleagues, but
whatever it is that bothers them, they should not let what bothers them
cause them to deny the fact that 90 percent of this passed through the
House, mostly with their votes before.
Maybe the problem is we are going to pass this law just too close to
the elections. Maybe that is what is bothering my Democrat colleagues.
Mr. Speaker, this is not a perfect tax bill. There rarely are perfect
tax bills.
[[Page H11254]]
But I can tell my colleagues this from my discussions with the White
House. There are some things in this that we do not like, and there are
some things that the President does not like. There are some things
that are not in here that we would like to have seen in here, and there
are some things that are not in here that the President would like to
have seen in here. We are only mostly happy, and he should be only
mostly happy.
The spirit of compromise means that nobody gets to be perfectly
happy. And maybe that is what makes this a good bill, and we all ought
to vote on it. Because working together, us with our point of view, my
Democrat colleagues with their point of view, our desire to help real
people in their real lives, whether it is adopting children, helping
individuals save for their own old age, helping mom and dad in their
old age, securing health insurance saving for a rainy day, or perhaps
the farmer wants a day that does not rain so much, whatever it is in
here, we are right here, my colleagues. We are right not only in our
understanding with our heads of the tax code and its injustices that
must be addressed but, more importantly, in our heart for saying to the
American people that they created the surplus and they deserve some of
it back.
Do we really have to keep it here so we can spend it all? I ask my
colleagues to vote ``yes.'' I ask the President to sign the bill. It
would make him mostly happy, I think. And that is as much as anyone can
expect in this life.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill, which
includes badly misplaced priorities in the areas of health care and
education.
There is a crisis among rural health care providers. As a steering
committee member of the Rural Health Care Coalition, I have fought long
and hard to address and alleviate this crisis. Too many rural
hospitals, nursing homes and home health agencies are being forced to
cut back on their services or to shut their doors because Medicare
reimbursement levels are inadequate to cover essential costs.
Unfortunately, rather than provide sufficient funding for these
essential providers, the bill before us directs a whopping 41 percent
of the available funds to managed care companies--even though HMOs
provide coverage for only about one in six seniors nationwide.
Because this bill provides a disproportionate share of funds to HMOs,
all the other providers have been shortchanged. One of my priorities,
and one of the priorities of our nation's hospitals, is to provide them
with a full inflationary update over the next two fiscal years. As
prescribed by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, hospitals did not
receive an inflationary update in fiscal year 1998 and thereafter have
received reduced updates. Rural hospitals depend more upon Medicare
reimbursements than do urban facilities and feel a greater impact from
payment reforms and reduction. In fact, in my home state of North
Dakota, hospital payments are still expected to decrease by $416
million, or 11 percent, from pre-BBA levels during fiscal years 1998-
2004. This is unacceptable.
I am disappointed, therefore, that this measure provides hospitals
with a full inflationary update for only one year, fiscal year 2001. At
the end of that fiscal year, the promise that some my colleagues are
making to these health care providers, a promise to help them keep
their doors open, may be broken. I intend to uphold this promise; I
have been in personal contact with the Administration, and they have
assured me that they, too, are committed to our nation's hospitals and
will continue to fight for a full, two-year inflationary update. The
least we can do is to provide our hospitals with an annual Medicare
payment update that reflects an unreduced adjustment for inflation, the
same adjustment we provide in other federal programs that seniors rely
upon, such as Social Security.
The development of home health services as part of the Medicare
program has been of great benefit to our nation's seniors. With home
care, our seniors receive quality, skilled care in their very own
homes, postponing or eliminating the need for care in more costly, and
often more isolated, settings. Unfortunately, home health agencies have
also suffered financially under the unintended consequences of the
Balanced Budget Act. This measure was supposed to cut $16 billion in
home health care spending over five years; new estimates show that we
have actually cut $69 billion, over four times what was anticipated.
Congress has a chance to do some good this year; we can eliminate the
further 15 percent reduction in Medicare payments to home health
agencies scheduled to go into effect in October 2001. This Congress,
however, is voting on a measure that will only delay this cut for one
more year, until October 2002. This, too, is unacceptable.
Providers are already doing all they can to keep their doors open
under these financial constraints. This has not been easy. Across the
nation, thousands of home health agencies have closed or stopped
serving Medicare beneficiaries. In North Dakota, four of the state's 36
Medicare-certified agencies have been forced to do the same. As a
result, the number of patients receiving Medicare home health services
has dropped. In 1997, 3.6 beneficiaries received home care across the
nation; in North Dakota, about 9,000 Medicare patients were served.
Only one year later, the number of Medicare patients served by home
care dropped an amazing 17 percent nationwide and 10 percent in North
Dakota. We cannot continue to address the financial crisis facing our
home health agencies on a year to year basis. We have to act now to end
this trend by repealing the 15 percent cut in Medicare payments for
once and for all.
I am also disappointed with the Republican school modernization
provision in this legislation. I believe that we have a responsibility
to provide our children with a quality education in a safe, modern
environment. As a father I want to be sure that my children, Kathryn
and Scotty, are learning in the best possible environment. As a Members
of Congress, I want that for all American children. The proposal before
us would not achieve that goal.
Mr. Speaker, studies have shown that American schools would need an
additional $125 billion in construction and renovation funds to be able
to provide our children with the best education. In North Dakota alone,
the National Education Association estimates the need for an additional
$545 million to adequately address school modernization issues. To
provide schools with the resources they need, we must pass the
bipartisan Johnson/Rangel bill, which would provide almost $25 billion
in tax credits to pay the interest on school construction bonds.
Unfortunately, the legislation we consider today would provide less
that half of that amount. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the education of
our children is worth more than that.
This legislation also includes a change to the tax-exempt bond
arbitrage rules that largely fails to meet the stated objective of
modernizing schools, especially in rural areas. Under the Republican
proposal, school districts would have four years to spend school
construction bond proceeds rather than the two years currently
permitted. Accordingly to Republicans, this would enable school
districts to invest bond proceeds for a longer period and recognize
greater arbitrage profits. The truth is, many school districts will
receive no benefits from the Republican proposal. Schools with urgent
needs, forced to teach children in trailers and dilapidated buildings,
would not benefit from this legislation. Their backlog of unmet needs
means that they do not have the luxury of waiting four years before
completing school construction.
The school modernization provision in the Republican tax bill is
simply inadequate to address the urgent construction and renovation
needs of our nation's schools, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this
legislation.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong
opposition to a veiled attempt by members from the other side to bring
tax relief to the floor at the expense of some of the wealthiest and
vulnerable Americans in our economy. It would do nothing but harm our
seniors.
The bill is deficient in three major areas. The legislation fails to
include the Rangel school construction tax credit provisions, which
would help leverage $24 billion in financing for school construction
and renovation. In addition to providing much-needed construction and
renovation of schools, these provisions would include vital Davis-Bacon
wage protections for construction workers. The bill should have
included real education reform.
Second, the Republicans crafted a health insurance coverage without
any input from colleagues from the other side. And it shows, Mr.
Speaker. This is the wrong type of health reform. And it is wrong for
the urban and rural hospitals in my district. We can do better for
America. Republicans have spent the entire year fighting against a
Medicare prescription drug benefit or a truly enforceable Patients'
Bill of Rights. Even worse, Republicans have fought meaningful
expansions of health insurance options for working families and have
prevented assistance for families with long-term needs.
This bill includes huge tax breaks for the wealthy without any
financing for a Medicare drug benefit, extending the life of the trust
fund, and protecting Medicare surplus for its future needs.
Furthermore, the legislation still allows individuals who do not
participate in employer-sponsored health plans to take an above-the-
line deduction for the cost if their health insurance premiums. This is
an extremely inefficient and costly means of trying to expand health
insurance coverage. Even
[[Page H11255]]
worse, it could have the perverse effect of undermining existing
employer-based coverage. Instead of this unprincipled proposal,
Congress should immediately consider other more targeted mechanisms to
expand health insurance coverage which would not jeopardize workers
existing coverage.
We also know, Mr. Speaker, that this bill includes a massive payment
for HMOs with no requirement that plans do not leave communities and
strand seniors or cut back on benefits. The bill would give $30 billion
in relief to health care providers under Medicare. Unfortunately, these
additional reimbursements are too heavily weighted toward HMOs, with
insufficient assistance being given to urban and rural hospitals. In
addition, this legislation fails to include adequate guarantees that
health care plans will maintain benefits for seniors.
It is clear that there is no meaningful guarantee of increased access
plans or benefits. That is inexcusable. Republicans rely on a ``trickle
down'' approach of giving large sums of money to HMOs and asking--not
requiring--that they use the money for beneficiaries. Their bill
includes no guarantee that plans will not drop out of communities or
Medicare altogether when it is no longer in their interest to remain or
that they will put new money towards maintaining benefits rather than
shoring up their bottom lines.
This bill would hurt my district, the 18th Congressional District of
Texas most dearly. HMOs have already been rolling out of communities
leaving seniors bewildered and confused about their choices. When plans
leave an area, seniors are left with tough choices that can be quite
traumatic or disturbing, especially for low and middle-income seniors.
We want to pass a bill that makes a real difference for our Nation's
seniors. And I am willing to stay here as long as we need to get the
job done. Democrats support reasonable tax cuts, Medicare and Medicaid
provider payment increases, and beneficiary investments. These are
parts of the bill that I support, such as a downpayment on provider
payment restorations, new preventative benefits in Medicare, increased
managed care payments for counties that now have low reimbursement, and
other provisions that provide for better care of our seniors.
It is time to come together a real bipartisan process to resolve
health policies in this 106th Congress. The bill has other serious
shortcomings that really have little to do with tax discussion. For
example, the bill allocates too little to critical beneficiary,
provider policies. Hospitals simply receive inadequate Medicaid
disproportionate share hospital payments increases, which has placed
many cities at a serious disadvantage. Hospitals, such as those located
in my districts, are facing increasingly difficult times at providing
adequate care to seniors.
There are other inexcusable ``reforms'' that have been inserted into
the bill. Home health agencies receive no 2nd year delay of the 15
percent cut; nursing homes will not even benefit from the proposal to
provide $1 billion in grants to states to improve quality by increasing
staff ratios; hospices receive no 2nd year of update; and beneficiaries
receive much less than HMOs.
Bipartisan proposals that have been excluded include are shameless.
This bill contains no health coverage option for legal immigrants,
passed on a bipartisan basis; no health coverage for children with
disabilities who cannot access private insurance; no improved
enrollment for uninsured children in schools and other sites; no
extension of transitional health coverage for people leaving welfare
for work; and no waiver of the Medicare waiting period for people with
Lou Gehrig's disease.
Mr. Speaker, we must work together to correct this legislation and
send something to the President that he can actually sign for that
benefits the American people. I urge my colleagues to join me in
rejecting this bill that is bad for our schools and for our seniors. We
ought and can do much better, Mr. Speaker.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, like many of my colleagues, I believe
that we need to make changes in 1997 Balanced Budget Act to restore
cuts made to Medicare and Medicaid. Unlike the authors of the
provisions in H.R. 2614 that we are discussing today, I believe that
increased payments deserve to go to those entities that actually
provide health care to our nation's senior citizens and persons with
disabilities.
There are some important provisions in this bill. I am extremely
pleased with the provision to protect Illinois and other states that
stand to lose needed Medicaid funds under a proposed change regarding
intergovernmental transfer provisions. This is an important provision
that will allow my state and others to continue to provide needed care
to the uninsured and the underinsured. But overall, this bill ignores
critical priorities, falls far short of what is needed, and actually
undermines some protections that many of us have fought so hard to win
over the past few years.
A major problem is the decision to reward Medicare HMOs instead of
directing more resources to actual care providers. Only 16 percent of
Medicare's 39 million beneficiaries are in Medicare+Choice, managed
care plans. Yet, over the next five years, those plans would receive 40
percent of the newly-restored payments under H.R. 2614. Over a ten-year
period, nearly half of the new payments would go to Medicare HMOs. Of
course, the 84 percent of beneficiaries who are not in Medicare managed
care won't get their fair share under this proposal. But there is no
guarantee that Medicare+Choice enrollees will benefit, either.
There is no requirement under this bill that Medicare managed care
plans pass any of those increased payments through to hospitals,
doctors, nursing homes, home health agencies or hospice providers.
There is no guarantee that, even with those new payments,
Medicare+Choice plans will stay in the market. Last year, we increased
Medicare+Choice payments and 934,000 beneficiaries still received
letters in the mail saying that their plan was going to leave them high
and dry. Yet, Medicare HMOs would get 40 percent of new payments,
despite the lack of accountability and guaranteed coverage and despite
reports by the General Accounting Office that in 1998 alone Medicare
spent $5 billion more on those beneficiaries in Medicare+Choice plans
than if those enrollees had been in traditional Medicare.
Instead of spending billions of dollars on Medicare HMOs that are
here today and gone tomorrow, I would rather spend those dollars to
provide direct payments to hospitals, particularly those that serve a
disproportionate share of low-income and uninsured patients and provide
critical teaching services. I would rather delay the 15 percent
reduction in home health spending for another two years, provide
nursing home quality grants and support efforts to move individuals to
home and community-based care.
I am particularly concerned that this bill does not provide adequate
funding for hospice and palliative care services. We are all concerned
about the high price of prescription drugs, but this is a particular
problem for hospice organizations that rely on prescription drugs to
provide critical pain relief to terminally ill patients. When Medicare
established payment rates for hospice services in the 1980s, medication
costs represented about $1 of the daily rate. Today, those costs have
increased by about 1500%, to $16 a day. Yet, payment rates have not
kept pace and the result is that many hospice care entities are
struggling to survive. In fact, as a Milliman and Robertson study
conducted in response to a Congressional directive concluded, ``the
trend is clear that Medicare hospice per diem payments do not cover the
costs of hospice care and result in significant financial losses to
hospice programs throughout the country.''
We could be acting today to provide health care for legal immigrant
pregnant women and children, to adopt the Family Opportunity Act, to
extend health coverage for people leaving welfare for work, to
eliminate the Medicare waiting period for persons with ALS, and to
expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program. H.R. 2614 ignores
these very real priorities in favor of Medicare HMOs. This is the wrong
priority, and I hope that my colleagues will reject this bill.
We have time to engage in real negotiations, to debate fairly and to
respond to the needs of patients. We can and we must act before we go
home this year to pass real, meaningful and pro-patient changes to the
1997 Balanced Budget Act.
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my opposition to
the conference report for H.R. 2614, which includes several tax-related
provisions dealing with community renewal, the repeal of Foreign Sales
Corporation laws, health care and Medicare provisions, minimum wage,
small business tax cuts, pension reform, and Individual Retirement
Account expansion.
This legislation, which was drafted without the consultation or
active participation of Congressional Democrats or the Administration,
fails to provide adequate funding for school construction and
modernization needs, health coverage for the uninsured, credits for
long term care, pension coverage, and accountability provisions for
excessive payment increases to health maintenance organizations (HMOs).
More importantly, this legislation fails to take into account the
dire economies of the U.S. territories, including the Territory of
Guam. For several months, I have appealed to the Administration and
Congressional leaders for tax relief legislation for Guam because of
the exclusion of the U.S. territories from the President's New Markets
Initiative legislation and the adverse impact that legislation
repealing the Foreign Sales Corporations (FSCs) program will have on
Guam.
Guam's economy continues to suffer as a result of the Asian financial
crisis since our island's tourism industry relies heavily on Japan and
other Asian countries due to our close
[[Page H11256]]
proximity to Asia. Moreover, Guam's unemployment rate is at an
unprecedented 15.3 percent, more than three times the national average.
I have requested that legislation I have sponsored, which is crucial
to Guam's economy, be included in any final tax package, particularly
if the legislation seeks to help distressed communities. The Guam
Foreign Direct Investment Equity Act would provide Guam with the same
rates as the fifty states under international tax treaties. Since the
U.S. cannot unilaterally amend treaties to include Guam in its
definition of United States, my legislation amends Guam's Organic Act,
which has an entire tax section that mirrors the U.S. tax code. The
legislation does not cost the federal government any money. It simply
allows the Government of Guam to lower its withholding rate for foreign
investors. My legislation passed the House previously as part of a Guam
omnibus bill on July 25, 2000. The bill has Administration and bi-
partisan Congressional support.
As background, under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, there is a 30
percent withholding tax rate for foreign investors in the United
States. Since Guam's tax law ``mirrors'' the rate established under the
U.S. Code, the standard rate for foreign investors in Guam is 30
percent.
My proposal provides the Government of Guam with the authority to tax
foreign investors at the same rates as states under U.S. tax treaties
with foreign countries since Guam cannot change the withholding tax
rate on its own under current law. Under U.S. tax treaties, it is a
common feature for countries to negotiate lower withholding rates on
investment returns. Unfortunately, while there are different
definitions for the term ``United States'' under these treaties, Guam
is not included. Such an omission has adversely impacted Guam since 75
percent of Guam's commercial development is funded by foreign
investors. As an example, with Japan, the U.S. rate for foreign
investors is 10 percent. That means while Japanese investors are taxed
at a 10 percent withholding tax rate on their investments in the fifty
states, those same investors are taxed at a 30 percent withholding rate
on Guam.
While the long term solution is for U.S. negotiators to include Guam
in the definition of the term ``United States'' for all future tax
treaties, the immediate solution is to amend the Organic Act of Guam
and authorize the Government of Guam to tax foreign investors at the
same rate as the fifty states. Other territories under U.S.
jurisdiction have already remedied this problem through delinkage,
their unique covenant agreements with the federal government, or
through federal statute. Guam, therefore, is the only state or
territory in the United States which is unable to take advantage of
this tax benefit.
At the end of the day, should the President and Congress agree on tax
legislation or legislation on the President's New Market's Initiative,
It would be a shame that Guam is not provided any economic relief as
well. I believe that U.S. policymakers have an obligation to help all
Americans, wherever they reside, including the U.S. territories.
Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I am also disappointed that the conference
report for H.R. 2614 fails to include a legislative proposal that
addresses the Medicaid needs of the U.S. territories. H.R. 5126, which
was introduced by Congresswoman Donna Christensen and co-sponsored by
all of the territorial Delegates, including myself, to provide Medicaid
relief to the territories by removing the Medicaid caps imposed on the
territories and adjusting the Federal matching rate, is supported by
the Congressional Asian Pacific American, Black, and Hispanic Caucuses.
As part of the 1997 Balanced Budget Act negotiations, the
Administration proposed a phase out of the caps. While Congress
appropriated the initial increase of 20 percent for FY 1997, no other
increases were appropriated in the following years. As Congress and the
Administration revisit the Balanced Budget Act plan in this give back
proposal, we request that the issue of increasing the Medicaid caps for
the territories be revisited.
The U.S. territories have the highest unemployment rates, the highest
poverty levels and the lowest per capita incomes in our nation. The
territories have not enjoyed the same level of economic growth as the
rest of the Nation and their ability to meet the Medicaid needs of
their residents is constrained by their economic circumstances. Faced
with depressed economic conditions and rising health needs of growing
indigent populations, the reliance on Medicaid assistance has grown
beyond the federal caps and beyond the territorial governments
abilities to match the funds. Lifting the cap or even following up on
the FY 1997 commitment to raise the Medicaid caps for the territories
by 20 percent each year until all achieve parity with the rest of the
nation is vital to insuring that all American citizens and children who
depend on Medicaid support are not limited by geography when it comes
to meeting basic healthcare needs.
I urge my colleagues to remember the U.S. territories in any tax-
related legislation, particularly as it affects distressed communities,
and request that my colleagues oppose the conference report for H.R.
2614.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA)
substantially cut payments to health care providers in order to reduce
total Medicare spending. I voted against the Balanced Budget Act
because the cuts were too severe and have threatened health care
delivery to the Medicare population. It is no surprise to me that the
bill before us today, H.R. 2614, seeks to undo portions of the BBA.
However, I am extremely disappointed with the unfair provision of this
bill; it doesn't provide adequate help to the neediest parts of our
health care system.
Hospitals absorbed the largest funding reductions under the BBA,
Oregon hospitals alone are expecting a $33.6 million loss in fiscal
year 2002. However, hospitals only receive a fraction of the ``give
back'' provided by H.R. 2614. Over 41 percent of the spending in this
bill goes to Medicare HMOs, affecting only the 16 percent of the
Medicare population covered by managed care plans. I will not support a
bill that does not provide sufficient relief to our hospitals, home
health care agencies, nursing homes, and hospices.
Hospital payments aside, the increased funding to Medicare HMOs does
not ensure improved healthcare for Medicare HMO customers, nor does it
address the flawed Medicare managed care reimbursement rate structure
that unfairly punishes cost effective states like Oregon. Managed care
plans in my district have recently doubled the monthly co-payment from
$35 to $69.50 with no corresponding increase in benefits. At the same
time, seniors in states with higher than average reimbursement rates
like California, New York, and Arizona have no out-of-pocket costs for
health care and often receive dental and vision coverage and a
prescription drug benefit. It is unfair to increase payments to
Medicare HMOs without focusing relief on those customers that are
forced to pay the highest rates and receive the fewest benefits.
A major concern is a provision that would criminalize decisions
doctors make on pain management for the most seriously ill and overturn
Oregon's Death with Dignity Act. Oregonians have twice voted to support
the assisted suicide law. H.R. 2614 not only is an attack on the
Democratic process, but also threatens to pain management. There is
evidence that doctors are increasingly hesitant to prescribe pain
medications to terminally ill patients for fear of being accused of
unlawfully assisting a suicide. The on-going attempts by Congress to
criminalize the doctor-patient relationship are a threat to pain
management in all fifty states.
Mr. COYNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this misguided
legislation. This bill contains a number of positive provisions, but it
also contains a number of provisions that would hinder what I believe
should be our long-term goals--ensuring that all of our citizens have
access to affordable, high quality health care.
I support a number of provisions in this bill. I introduced
legislation last year that would have made the current tax provision
allowing the expensing of brownfield clean-up costs permanent, and I
introduced legislation with Congressman Jerry Weller that would have
eliminated the existing language which limits the brownfields expensing
provision to certain targeted areas. I am pleased that language
expanding the definition of qualified sites and extending the
expiration date of this provision through 2003 was included among the
community revitalization provisions contained in this bill.
I am a cosponsor of the Rangel-Johnson legislation that would
establish a tax credit for qualified school modernization bonds, so I
am concerned that H.R. 2614 does not contain this bipartisan language
to promote school construction, renovation and repair. Moreover, I am
concerned that the bill does not provide adequate protection for the
construction workers who would be employed on the school projects that
this legislation would finance.
The Medicare and health-related provisions of this legislation also
cause me great concern. I believe that the Members of the House are
nearly unanimous in supporting additional funding for Medicare. I
strongly support such an increase myself. I am concerned, however, that
this $27 billion package contains too large an increase in funding for
Medicare HMOs and not enough an increase in Medicare benefits for
seniors and reimbursement for hospitals, home health care services, and
other health care providers. Consequently, I must oppose H.R. 2614.
Finally, I have serious concerns about some of the health-related tax
provisions contained in this bill. The bill would allow individuals who
do not participate in employer-provided health plans to take above-the-
line deductions for the cost of their insurance premiums. I have two
concerns about this approach. At best, it is an
[[Page H11257]]
expensive and inefficient way of ensuring that all Americans have
access to affordable health insurance. It does little to help the
uninsured. But of perhaps even greater concern is the possibility that
this provision would undermine our existing system of employer-based
health insurance.
For these reasons, I must oppose this legislation, and I will support
the President should he veto this bill. It is my hope that Congress
will be able to craft better legislation addressing Medicare and tax
cuts before it adjourns for the year.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I oppose H.R. 2614. This bill
includes both the balanced budget act giveback plan as well as the
Republican's tax cut proposal. Both of these provisions were negotiated
behind closed doors and without consulting either Democrats or the
Administration.
While there are many problems with this legislation, I am extremely
disappointed that it does not include the Commerce Committee-approved
provision giving States the option to provide basic health care
coverage to legal permanent resident children and pregnant women.
The 1996 Balanced Budget Act mandated that lawfully present children
and pregnant women who arrived in the U.S. after 1996 must wait five
years before they can apply for basic health care. As a result, this
vulnerable population cannot obtain proper health treatment such as
preventive and prenatal care.
Making health care available to this group, through Medicaid and the
State children's health insurance program, is simply good public
policy. It would provide critically-needed health services to 144,000
children and 33,000 pregnant women per year--children and mothers who
have followed the rules, paid taxes, and are in this country legally.
We cannot let these children and mothers down by excluding this
critical, bipartisan measure.
Unfortunately, the Republican-negotiated package does just that.
As Chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and as a Member who
represents a large Hispanic community, my top priority is to advocate
for the fair treatment of all hard-working, tax-paying families,
including legal immigrants. Denying health care coverage to legal
immigrants is not fair treatment.
For this and other reasons, I cannot support this legislation.
I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 2614 and work to craft a true
bipartisan package that includes the restoration of health care for
legal immigrant children and pregnant women.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us is an example of a
fatally flawed partisan process that strips out important provisions
that are important to a list of bipartisan supporters.
First and foremost, almost 50 percent of funding in this bill before
us goes to HMO's in the Medicare program--over $34 billion over the
next 10 years. Let me repeat: . . . $34 billion to Medicare HMO's that
serve just 16 percent of the Medicare beneficiaries.
And why? Under current law, according to the General Accounting
Office, ``Medicare's overly generous payment rates [to HMOs] well
exceed what Medicare would have paid had these individuals remained in
the traditional fee-for-service program.'' Incredibly, in the name of
moving to what some claim is a more efficient model of care, we could
completely repeal Medicare+Choice and save taxpayers money, reduce
premiums for Medicare beneficiaries, and extend the life of the
Medicare trust fund.
There is a fundamental problem with the Medicare+Choice program, and
it goes well beyond the argument that we need to address pull-outs of
managed care plans. Instead, we need a fundamental re-consideration of
how this program operates. Instead, this Republican bill is throwing
yet another $34 billion into the program.
What are we getting for this $34 billion? There is no guarantee that
plans will not drop out of communities or Medicare altogether. There is
no guarantee that they will put new money toward maintaining benefits
rather than shoring up their bottom lines. Where is the accountability
for $34 billion?
Time and time again in the Congress, you have to question which party
is truly about fiscal responsibility. This partisan Republican drafted
bill certainly does not reflect such responsibility.
To pay HMOs all of this money with no accountability,what was dropped
or lost?
Dramatically cut by 72 percent was the Medicaid disproportionate
share hospital (DSH) program from the levels passed in a bipartisan
mark-up in the House Commerce Committee. That bipartisan legislation,
introduced by Chairman Bliley and Ranking Member Dingell, incorporated
provisions from legislation introduced by Representatives Whitfield,
Bilbray, and myself. That legislation corrected a $10.4 billion cut to
the Medicaid DSH program over five years. It prevents further cuts to
the Medicaid DSH program in FY 2001 and well into the future.
In sharp contrast, the partisan Republican bill before us only
protects the program in FY 2001 and FY 2002 and that dramatically cuts
funding to states and our nation's safety net hospitals in FY 2003. The
effect is a 72 percent cut from what was included in bipartisan
Commerce Committee package.
In the State of California, hospitals will lose $143 million in
federal Medicaid DSH funding in FY 2003. This legislation imposes a
horrible cliff effect on hospitals and a fix that would require $4
billion over 5 years. Don't put off this issue on the 107th Congress.
Address it today.
What other provisions were dropped or left out in order to give
Medicare HMO's the bulk of the money?
Dropped were bipartisan proposals to provide health coverage options
to legal immigrant children and pregnant women, which was included in
my bill, the Improved Maternal and Children's Health Coverage Act.
Dropped was another provision from that bill to improve enrollment
for uninsured children in schools and other sites.
Not included were provisions to extend coverage to pregnant women
through CHIP--resulting in bizarre public policy that provides prenatal
care just to teenagers that get pregnant prior to age 18 but cuts them
off once them become adults. If you are concerned about infant
mortality, mother-to-child HIV transmission and a number of other
maternal and child health issues, this is something that we should pass
this year.
Dropped was the Family Opportunity Act, which would have improved
work incentives for parents of children with disabilities who cannot
access private health insurance.
Dropped was a provision to extent the transitional health coverage
for people leaving welfare for work.
Dropped was provision to extend Medicare coverage for people with
Lou Gehrig's disease, whose life expectancy following diagnosis is
often shorter than the waiting period.
Not included was a $3,000 tax credit for people with long-term care
needs or their family caregivers.
Not included were provisions to provide Medicare and Medicaid
smoking cessation counseling to help out nation's elderly and low-
income populations stop smoking and extend their lives.
Not included was anything to address the need for a Medicare
prescription drug benefit.
What's more, this bill omits common sense language that was included
in the Commerce Committee's mark to improve Medicare coverage of
diabetes outpatient self-management training authorized in the 1997
BBA. This simple technical fix would allow the Health Care Financing
Administration to recognize state diabetes education programs already
established by nearly a dozen states so that they may continue to
provide that service for beneficiaries.
As it is written currently, the 1997 BBA provision forces HCFA to
slash the number of diabetes education programs eligible for Medicare
by setting unreasonable credentialing standards, which do not recognize
the state programs. HCFA estimates that only 750 programs would meet
the new standards next year. Hundreds of programs currently in
operation would be forced to stop serving Medicare patients. This is
not the expansion of service that was envisioned in 1997. The technical
fix makes sense; it is a low-cost, bi-partisan provision, yet it has
vanished as a casualty of partisan wrangling and Medicare beneficiaries
with diabetes will be the victims.
In addition, there are a growing number of reports across this nation
about how states have failed to spend their CHIP allotments due to poor
outreach and enrollment and state bureaucratic barriers. In a number of
GAO reports during the past three years, a number of these bureaucratic
barriers have been identified and highlighted.
We now have three years of experience with this program and a number
of reports that all point to the bureaucratic barriers that prevent
children from gaining access to coverage, including unnecessarily
lengthy and complex application forms and enrollment processes.
For these reasons, I firmly believe we should consider comprehensive
legislation in this area this year to address the problems we all know
to be true with the CHIP program. Rather than enact the $1.9 billion
reduction in CHIP that the Senate Appropriations Committee originally
proposed or to reallocate money among the states, we should fix the
problems. While I understand that some may not want to address this
issue out of concern that it highlights particularly terrible
enrollment in Texas, it is the 10 million uninsured children in this
country that are left suffering.
And finally, I would also like to highlight an additional concern
with the impact that BBA may have on Medicare beneficiaries with regard
to their access to vital ambulance services. The BBA required HCFA to
place ambulance service providers on a Medicare fee schedule through a
negotiated rulemaking process. The problem was the BBA required
[[Page H11258]]
the process to be conducted in a budget neutral fashion, so HCFA was
precluded from addressing the actual costs of such services in creating
the new few schedule.
Unfortunately, a recent study by Project Hope, an esteemed health
care think tank, indicates that ambulance services providers may face a
profound shortfall in Medicare payments. It is essential that these
providers are fairly reimbursed so that Medicare beneficiaries, and all
Americans, are guaranteed that the 911 system is protected and there
when needed.
Certainly, there are a number of provisions in this legislation that
I strongly support, including:
Language from may bill, the Medicaid Safety Net Hospital Preservation
Act, which prevents further pending Medicaid disproportionate share
hospital (DSH) cuts to states and our nation's safety net hospitals.
Language to help our nation's community health centers receive
adequate payments through the Medicaid program.
Language to address hospital Medicare bad debt payments, which comes
from legislation I introduced with Representative Greenwood.
Language to fund diabetes research at levels of $70 million in fiscal
years 2001 and 2002 and $100 million in fiscal year 2003.
Those provisions and others in the bill related to hospitals, nursing
homes, home health agencies, others are fantastic and should be
supported. However, they all come from language passed in the
bipartisan Commerce Committee mark-up on September 27, 2000.
Unfortunately, we can do much better. Our nation's elderly and low-
income citizens deserve it.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises today to express his
support for the conference report for H.R. 2614 which includes tax
relief, restoration of Medicare funding, and an increase in the minimum
wage.
This Member would like to emphasize the following reasons, among many
others, for supporting this legislation.
First, this legislation addresses retirement savings by allowing
workers to save more. In particular, it increases the current
individual retirement account contribution limit from $2,000 to $5,000
phased in over three years. In addition, it increases the contribution
limit on employer-sponsored 401(k) plans from $10,500 to $15,000.
Second, the conference report for H.R. 2614 would assist taxpayers
with the costs of health care. In particular, it would do the
following: provide a deduction for long-term care premiums if the
taxpayer pays more than 50 percent of the premiums; and provide a 100
percent deduction for health insurance for self-employed individuals to
become effective in 2001 (under current law, it reaches full
deductibility in 2003).
Third, the conference report for H.R. 2614 will provide small
business tax relief. In particular, this legislation increases the
phased-in business meal expense deduction. Furthermore, it repeals
current law which prohibits a business owner from spreading the capital
gains tax payment over the life of the installment note. This Member
has been contacted by numerous small business owners who support this
repeal since they desire to sell their business over a period of years
and yet still remain involved in the business.
Fourth, the conference report for H.R. 2614 provides essential tax
assistance for affordable housing. In fact, it increases the highly
successful Federal low income housing tax credit from $1.25 per capita
to $1.75 per capita by 2002. This tax credit provides an essential
incentive to developers to construct affordable housing. In addition,
this legislation increases the private activity bond cap from the
current $50 per capita to $75 per capita and it increases the small
state bond cap limit from $150 million to $225 million by 2002. The
private activity bond cap in Nebraska provides tax exempt financing
for, among other things, single and multifamily housing.
Fifth, this measure maintains the current tax treatment of foreign
sales corporation (FSC) beneficiaries in a manner that the United
States believes to be World Trade Organization compliant. If this
provision had not have been included by November 1, 2000, it would have
been especially damaging to U.S. farmers and ranchers.
Sixth, this Member strongly supports the Medicare Balanced Budget Act
provisions of this legislation. Communities within the state of
Nebraska greatly rely upon its rural health system. The viability of
the town often revolves around the hospital and access to health care.
Increased funding for rural disproportionate share hospitals (DSH), the
extension of the Medicare Dependent Hospital (MDH) program in rural
areas, and increased access to telehealth medicine will help assure the
continued viability of rural health facilities. Nebraska also has the
greatest number of critical access hospitals (CAH) in the country and
some specific provisions will also benefit these hospitals. These
provisions include the reduction of out-of-pocket costs for
beneficiaries receiving clinical lab tests and the expansion of access
to ambulance services in CAH.
Lastly, this legislation increases the minimum wage from $5.15 to
$6.15 over two years. A relatively small number of Nebraskans now work
for less than $6.15 an hour as it is, but they are often teenagers or
employees of very small businesses. This Member believes that an
increase in the minimum wage can at least be partially justified by the
relatively minor decline in purchasing power of the minimum-wage
dollars since the rate was last increased in 1997. Of course, this
Member would have preferred that the increase be spaced over three
years, rather than two (and this Member unsuccessfully voted to do so
on March 9, 2000), as this would have more closely matched the impact
of inflation on the value of the minimum wage. Moreover, this Member
believes the aforementioned tax relief measure will help at least a
large number of small businesses off-set increased costs due to the
increased minimum wage.
Therefore, for these reasons, and many others, this Member urges his
colleagues to support the conference report for H.R. 2614.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2614, which
includes the so-called Medicare givebacks legislation.
There are some good things in this bill. It includes an increase in
the minimum wage over two years. It contains several incentives for
Americans to save for their retirement. And it expands economic
development assistance to underserved communities.
But for as much as I support these provisions, I cannot support this
bill. As so many of us know, the reductions in Medicare payments
mandated by the Balanced Budget Act in 1997 hit our hospitals very
hard. and frankly, the BBA relief measure that Congress passed last
year was just not enough.
Our hospitals nationwide are hemorrhaging from the impact of Medicare
cuts. They need help to recover from these losses and cope with our
rapidly changing health care system. Even with significant cuts in
personnel, many hospitals are experiencing major deficits. And the
plight of teaching and high-need hospitals is especially grim.
That's why I introduced H.R. 3580, the Hospital Preservation and
Equity Act, which would provide hospitals an adequate adjustment for
the cost of caring and would restore the inflationary update for
hospitals for the last two years of the BBA. I am not the only one who
thinks this is critical--321 of my colleagues have cosponsored this
legislation. These co-sponsors, our colleagues, come from every corner
of this country, urban, rural, and suburban. They are Republicans and
Democrats, but they agree--our hospitals need these inflationary
payments in full, In fact, MedPac--the Congress's advisor on Medicare
payment policy--has called for inflationary payment above the full
level authorized now.
But despite the overwhelming support for H.R. 3580, the Medicare
givebacks language in this bill does not provide the needed two years
of relief. And this bill shortchanges our hospitals in other ways as
well. Instead of keeping the Indirect Medical Education adjustment at
6.5 percent for at least two years, this bill enacts further cuts in
2001, 2002, and 2003.
Our hospitals are our lifeblood, and they need our help. Sadly, this
bill fails to provide adequate relief to these ailing facilities. We
can and we must do more. I urge my colleagues to do the right thing and
provide meaningful relief to our hospitals.
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I regret that I have to speak
out against this tax bill. That regret comes from the fact that it has
been put together in a very clever manner. For me, it cloaks a number
of very good provisions of secondary importance, with some more
important items that are simply bad policy. I have generally found that
when you are weighing all the items in a tax bill, you have to be
particularly sensitive to bad policy because once a provision gets into
the tax code, you can rarely get it out. On the other hand, the good
items will resurface again in the next bill, either during the next few
days or next year.
I like very much the 100 percent deduction for the self-employed, a
large number of the pension provisions, the housing provisions
especially the immediate increase in the low income housing tax credit
and the private activity bond cap for first time buyers, and the
insurance provisions, among many other provisions. Repeal of section
809 and section 815 are examples of the type of clean-up of the tax
code that we need to do more of, and I congratulate the majority party
for including these items.
Nevertheless, there is bad policy contained in a number of items of
the bill that will have an adverse impact on average Americans. If a
reasonable test of a provision is that it does something good, as
opposed to simply doing something, then some key provision of this bill
fail.
For example, the health deduction provides an incentive for healthy
individuals to drop group health insurance. This drives up the
[[Page H11259]]
cost of the group pool for everyone else, and thereby drives up the
total cost of the system, while providing a minimum increase in
coverage.
Relaxing the arbitrage rules on school construction bonds provides an
incentive for local governments to delay the construction of new
classrooms for two additional years--not a good provision when you are
enacting a school modernization program.
And the many good, solid provisions of the pension bill are negated
by a few provisions that provide an incentive to reduce pension
coverage. If the retirement savings credit and the small business
credits were included, at least there would be countervailing pressures
to expand coverage for moderate income workers. But those incentives,
while accepted by Senate Republicans, were rejected out of hand by
House Republicans.
So now we have to decide which way to go, yes or no. It would not be
too hard to have crafted this bill to get a yes, but unfortunately
there is enough bad policy in this bill to require a ``no'' vote.
Perhaps this will produce a situation where the leadership on the other
side of the aisle rethinks its decisions, and brings out an acceptable
bill. I hope this is the case.
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Taxpayer
Relief Act of 2000. I am supporting this legislation because I believe
that we must address several issues, including providing more funding
for Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements to health care providers,
helping more Americans to save for their retirement, increasing federal
funding to rebuild our nation's schools, and investing in community
revitalization efforts. Although I am disappointed that this
legislation excludes certain tax and health provisions, I believe on
balance that we must move forward on this effort. At this late date in
the 106th Congress, I am concerned that this imperfect legislation will
be the only opportunity to provide these vital tax and health benefits.
I am particularly pleased that this legislation includes provisions
to provide higher Medicare reimbursement for our nation's teaching
hospitals. As the representative for the Texas Medical Center, the
nation's largest medical center, providing this relief to teaching
hospitals is critically important. Today, many of these teaching
hospitals are facing financial difficulties because they are receiving
lower reimbursements from managed care health plans, lower Medicare
reimbursements due in part to the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, treating
a larger number of uninsured patients, and insufficient support for
their biomedical research which provides the cutting-edge treatments
that patients need.
This bill provides necessary higher reimbursements to hospitals. This
measure provides a full Market Basket Index (MBI) update for the
Prospective Payment System (PPS) reimbursement paid to hospitals
beginning on April 1, 2001. It also provides an update of MBI minus .55
percent for Fiscal Year 2002 and Fiscal Year 2003. Both of these
provisions are improvements over current law. This bill also includes a
provision to increase Indirect Medicare Education (IME) payments to
teaching hospitals to an average of 6.5 percent for Fiscal Year 2001
and 6.375 percent in Fiscal year 2002 and 5.5 percent in Fiscal Year
2003 and subsequent years. These IME payments help teaching hospitals
to pay for the indirect costs of training our nation's physicians. This
bill also includes a provision to provide higher reimbursements for a
hospital's resident amount to 85 percent of the national average. Under
current law, all hospitals are eligible for at least 70 percent of the
national average. This provision will help those hospitals, such as
those as the Texas Medical Center, who have historically received lower
per residency amount. This provision builds upon legislation which I
have cosponsored (H.R. 1224) that would provide a full 100 percent per
residency amount for all hospitals.
This comprehensive package also includes improvements in the Medicaid
and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) program.
Although I am disappointed that the conference report eliminates an
earlier provision based upon legislation that I had sponsored (H.R.
1298) to expand the presumptive eligibility program, I am pleased that
this Medicaid provision would permit the cost of presumptive
eligibility programs to be deducted from the SCHIP appropriation
instead of the Medicaid appropriation, without a subsequent offset.
Under current law, there is a disincentive to conduct presumptive
eligibility programs because states receive lower Medicaid funding if
they use them. This provision will ensure that states receive higher
SCHIP allocations to conduct their presumptive eligibility outreach
programs. This legislation also includes higher Disproportionate Share
Hospital (DSH) payments for those hospitals which treat a
disproportionate share of uninsured and underserved patients. This
provision would increase Medicaid DSH payments equal to their Fiscal
Year 2000 DSH allotment plus a percentage change equal to the consumer
price index for each year. This increase cannot exceed 12% of each
state's total medical assistance payments. In Texas, where more than 25
percent of our citizens do not have health insurance, the DSH program
is vitally important to these hospitals which treat these patients.
During the debate on the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, I fought to
increase Medicaid DSH payments. This legislation builds upon this
effort to ensure that our safety net hospitals get the funding they
need to continue to provide quality health care to all Americans.
This bill also includes provisions that ensure that the State of
Texas can continue to utilize the State Children's Health Insurance
Program (SCHIP) allotment for Fiscal Year 1998 and 1999. I am a strong
supporter of the SCHIP program which was created as part of the
Balanced Budget Act of 1997 because it will help many working families
to provide health insurance for their children. There are currently 1.4
million uninsured children in Texas who may benefit from this SCHIP
program. Under current law, the State of Texas will forfeit up to $446
million since the SCHIP program in Texas has only been available in
recent months and therefore many children have not been signed up yet.
This measure would correct this inequity by ensuring that Texas can
reapply for these funds. Texas would be eligible to their allotment
minus the amounts distributed to those 10 states which have spent their
allotment multiplied by a ratio of the state's unspent funds as
compared to the total amount of unspent funds. These redistributed
funds will be available through Fiscal Year 2002.
This legislation also includes necessary improvements to the
preventive benefits provided to Medicare beneficiaries. This measure
provides coverage for biennial pap smears and pelvic exams for all
Medicare beneficiaries, effective July 1, 2001. This means that all
women on Medicare will get the recommended screenings they need to
detect cancer and get early treatment if necessary. It would provide
annual glaucoma screening for high-risk individuals and individuals
with diabetes. This legislation also includes colorectal screenings for
all Medicare beneficiaries, instead of screenings for only high-risk
individuals. Colorectal cancer can be effectively treated as long as
patients learn about their cancers at early stages. This bill would
also provide higher payments for mammograms and would encourage the use
of new digital technologies that can detect cancer at earlier stages.
This measure provides medical nutrition therapy for beneficiaries with
diabetes and renal disease. As a cosponsor of legislation to
provide Medicare coverage for medical nutrition therapy, I am pleased
that we will extend this coverage to those Medicare beneficiaries who
will benefit from this nutritional therapy. With better nutrition, we
can help these patients with chronic diseases to stay healthy and
reduce health care costs.
This measure also provides other benefits for Medicare beneficiaries.
It would reduce the copayments that Medicare beneficiaries are required
to pay for outpatient procedures. Under current law, beneficiaries can
pay up to 70 percent of hospital's charge of an outpatient procedure.
This bill would cap the amount that Medicare beneficiaries are required
to pay to the hospital inpatient deductible for this year. Currently,
this hospital deductible is $776 per year. This bill also lowers the
outpatient copayments to 60 percent of the hospital's charge for an
outpatient procedure in January 2001 and dropping 5 percent lower each
year to 40 percent in 2006. This legislation also includes a provision
to eliminate the current 3-year time limitation for coverage of
immunosuppressive drugs for those beneficiaries who receive an organ
transplant. As a cosponsor of legislation to eliminate this time limit
(H.R. 1115), I am pleased that Congress has acted to ensure that these
lifesaving drugs are available to organ transplant patients. Without
these immunosuppressive drugs, there is a danger that these Medicare
patients will reject their donated organs.
This legislation also includes a provision based upon legislation I
sponsored (H.R. 854) that would require the Commissioner of the Social
Security Administration (SSA) to conduct outreach efforts to identify
individuals who may be eligible for the Medicaid payment of their
Medicare premiums, copayments, and deductibles. This provision requires
the SSA Commissioner to provide a list annually to each state's
Medicaid agency with the names and addresses of people who may be
eligible for this program. It is estimated that there are up to four
million low and moderate income Americans who are eligible for, but not
enrolled, in the Qualified Medicare Beneficiary (QMB) and Select Low
Income Medicare Beneficiary (SLIMB) programs. This outreach program
would help to identify these individuals and encourage them to
participate in this cost sharing assistance program. The Social
Security Administration (SSA) is a logical choice for providing this
information since they already have income related information which
they collect from each social security recipient and
[[Page H11260]]
can identify those low and moderate income individuals who might
benefit from this help.
I am also pleased that this legislation includes necessary pension
reforms that will help more Americans to save for the future. Mr.
Speaker, as one who has consistently advocated for legislation to
foster greater retirement security and, as one of the authors of H.R.
352, pension legislation that was subsumed into this measure, I support
H.R. 2614. This measure not only enhances retirement security by
increasing the annual contribution limits for individual Retirement
Accounts (IRAs) and provides ``catch-up'' provisions for older workers,
but also eases the administrative burdens that keep small employers
from offering pension plans.
Despite the fact that unemployment is at an all-time low and incomes
have risen to historical highs, we, as a nation, have an abysmally low
savings rate of 3.8 percent of disposable personal income. Moreover,
the percentage of private sector workers covered by a pension plan has
decreased by 2% from 45% in 1970 to 43% in 1990, which leaves Social
Security as the main source of income for 80 percent of retirees. With
the approaching retirement of nearly 76 million Baby Boomers, clearly
the three-legged stool of retirement security is in jeopardy.
In addition to an increase to the annual contribution limit for
Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) to $5000 by 2003, indexed for
inflation, H.R. 2614, much like the bill I offered with Mr. Blunt of
Missouri, encourages small businesses to provide retirement plans for
their employees. Time and again, small employers tell me that the
expensive and complicated procedures to establish a plan keep them from
offering plans. Not surprisingly, only 21 percent of all individuals
employed by small businesses with less than 100 employees participate
in an employer-sponsored plan, compared to 64 percent of those who work
for businesses with more than 100 employees.
H.R. 2614 would reduce plan costs and ease administrative burdens by
streamlining a number of onerous pension regulations, lowering pension
plan insurance premiums, simplifying top heavy rules, simplifying
annual report requirements, and eliminating Internal Revenue Service
(IRS) user fees for new plans. Moreover, H.R. 2614 recognizes American
workers will hold several jobs during their working life by increasing
portability for retirement savings and allowing workers to rollover
investment in different pension plans.
H.R. 2614 also promotes retirement savings by low and middle income
by providing for a temporary non-refundable tax credit equal to the
$2,000 maximum annual contribution for individual earning $25,000 or
less and couples earning $50,000 or less. It also provides for a three-
year tax credit equal to 50% of the first $1,000 of expenses associated
with the adoption of a qualified pension plan by a small business.
Additionally, I would note that H.R. 2614 also establishes greater
notice requirements for employers who convert their pension plan to a
cash balance or similar hybrid plan, eliminating the potential for a
participant's normal retirement benefit being ``worn-away'' by the
conversion.
Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased that H.R. 2614 provides for the
national minimum wage to rise by a dollar to $6.15 over two years. The
purchasing power of the minimum wage today is 21% less than in 1979.
Under current law, a single mother of two, employed full-time, 40 hours
per week for 52 weeks, earns $10,712, $3,200 below the poverty line.
Work should be a bridge out of poverty but, unfortunately, too many
full-time workers still live below the poverty line. We cannot truly
reform our welfare system until we ensure that work pays more than
welfare.
Another aspect of H.R. 2614 that I support is the inclusion of
provisions from legislation I voted in favor of in July 2000, the
Community Renewal and New Markets Act of 2000, H.R. 4923. While the
economic boom we currently enjoy has enriched the lives of many
communities, there are still far too many that need reinvestment. In
addition to creating nine new Empowerment Zones, H.R. 2614 provides for
the designation of 40 ``renewal communities'' that would be eligible
for an array of tax benefits including, immediate deductions of up to
$35,000 for equipment purchased by small businesses, a 15% wage credit
for each community resident a small business employs, expensing of
certain environmental remediation costs associated with Brownfield
cleanups, as well as Commercial Revitalization Deductions for taxpayers
who rehabilitate or revitalize buildings located in a renewal
community.
Under the New Markets Tax Credit provision in H.R. 2614, investors in
eligible funds would receive a tax credit worth more than 30% of the
amount invested and would take a 5% credit for the first three years of
investment, and 6% for the next four years. The New Markets Tax Credit
would be widely available on a competitive basis to eligible entities
serving low- and moderate-income communities in census tracts with
poverty rates of at least 20% or median family income which does not
exceed 80% of the area income. H.R. 2614 also would establish a new
class of venture capital funds that target a lower rate of return and
provide more hands-on management assistance to their small business
portfolio investments, New Markets Venture Capital Firms (NMVC). The
Community Revitilazation provisions of H.R. 2614 are targeted and have
the potential to make a very real difference in communities throughout
this nation.
For all of these reasons, I am supporting this bill. Although I would
have preferred to include more provisions and would have excluded other
provisions, I believe that on the whole that this comprehensive package
of provisions represents what can be achieved today. I believe that we
need to be realistic that this compromise legislation is likely the
only option available for this year and I urge my colleagues to support
this legislation.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2614 contains some very laudable tax cut
measures which I strongly support. However, the bill also contains some
very troubling provisions, provisions which have no place in what ought
to be purely tax relief legislation. As a result, this bill represents
an eleventh-hour political compromise which makes politicians feel good
but does more harm than good for the American people.
Many Members, including myself, have worked hard to bring some
measure of tax relief to American families this year. We worked to pass
meaningful bills which would have eliminated the marriage penalty and
eliminated the harmful estate tax. We worked to increase deductions for
health care expenses. We worked to increase the tax-deductible amounts
individuals can contribute to their IRA and pension plans. We worked
for these tax cuts because we know that American families pay too much
in taxes. Tax relief has been, and should be, our guiding principle.
Accordingly, I strongly endorse many of the provisions in this bill.
I fully support the increased IRA and pension plan deduction amounts,
which will benefit virtually all Americans. Tax-deductible and tax-
deferred savings incentives represent the very best kind of tax reforms
this Congress can make. Not only do Americans pay less in taxes with an
increased deduction, they also have an increased incentive to
accumulate retirement savings.
Another worthwhile portion of this bill addresses the needs of rural
hospitals, which were unfairly singled out for excessive reductions in
Medicare reimbursements by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. While
Congress deserves a share of the blame, most of the problems
experienced by rural health care providers are the result of flawed
implementation of the Act by the Health Care Financing Administration
(HCFA). This administration has decimated rural health care in order to
artificially prolong the life of the Medicare trust fund, while
avoiding reforms that would give seniors more control over their health
care decisions. The administration should not play political games with
Medicare trust funds at the expense of rural hospitals. By doing so, it
has violated the promise of quality health care made to senior
taxpayers in rural areas.
Mr. Speaker, I also am pleased that this bill extends the Medical
Savings Accounts (MSA) program created in 1996. MSAs and generous
health care tax deductions are critical to preserving health care
freedom. Federal policies removing consumer control over health care
dollars inevitably have led to increased decision making by HMOs and
federal bureaucrats.
We must restore individual control over health care dollars, and MSAs
coupled with health care tax credits and deductions are an important
step in the right direction. MSAs and health care tax deductions lower
health care costs without sacrificing quality by motivating patients to
negotiate for the highest quality care at a reasonable price.
Similarly, today's small business tax relief measures are
commendable. We place a huge regulatory and tax burden on our nation's
small employers, many of which find it difficult simply to comply with
the tax laws. I support any efforts to reduce taxes and regulations on
our small entrepreneurial employers.
Unfortunately, these positive tax relief provisions are outweighed by
other measures in today's mixed bag legislation, measures which have
been agreed to only because many Members want to claim they have passed
a ``tax relief'' bill before they go home. The administration has
thwarted many of our tax relief efforts through the veto process, and
we apparently have decided to take whatever tax measures we can get,
regardless of the price. So now we find ourselves in a position where
we cobble together some less sweeping tax relief proposals which the
administration will accept, and we put them in a larger bill which
contains some very bad measures favored by the administration. Before
we tout today's bill, however, we ought to be honest with our
constituents about the real nature of this last-minute compromise.
[[Page H11261]]
The small business tax relief in this bill is more than outweighed by
the provisions raising the federally-mandated minimum wage. While I
certainly understand the motivation to help lower wage workers, the
reality is that a minimum wage hike hurts lower income Americans the
most. When an employer cannot afford to pay a higher wage, the employer
has no choice but to hire less workers. As a result, young people with
fewer skills and less experience find it harder to obtain an entry-
level job. Raising the minimum wage actually reduces opportunities and
living standards for the very people the administration claims will
benefit from this legislation! It's time to stop fooling ourselves
about the basic laws of economics, and realize that Congress cannot
legislate a higher standard of living. Congress should not allow itself
to believe that the package of small business tax cuts will fully
compensate businesses and their employees for the damage inflicted by a
minimum wage hike. Congress is not omnipotent; we cannot pretend to
strike a perfect balance between tax cuts and wage mandates so that no
American businesses or workers are harmed. It may make my colleagues
feel good to raise the minimum wage, but the real life consequences of
this bill will be felt by those who can least afford diminished job
opportunities.
We also make a mistake when we rush to change our domestic tax laws
to comply with the ruling of an international body. Nobody in Congress
or the administration wants to talk about it, but this is the first
time in the history of our nation that we have changed our laws because
an international body told us to do so. We are not considering this
legislation because American citizens or corporations lobbied for it.
We are considering it solely because of the demands of the WTO
appellate panel, which agreed with EU complaints about our corporate
income tax laws. We created the Foreign Sales Corporation rules back in
the 1980s, but now the EU has decided our law exempting a small portion
of foreign source income from corporate taxes represents a ``subsidy.''
We have plenty of federal subsidies in this country, but the FSC tax
treatment assuredly is not one of them. FSCs do not receive a subsidy--
no tax dollars are collected from taxpayers and given to FSCs. The FSC
rules simply permit the parent corporation to pay less taxes on its
foreign income. Most EU countries don't tax their corporations on
foreign income at all! So the EU complaint that the FSC represents a
subsidy is ridiculous.
This measure clearly demonstrates how our membership in the WTO
undermines our national sovereignty. I have warned this body that the
WTO does not promote true free trade, but rather enforces politically
influenced ``managed trade.'' I warned this body that our agreement to
abide by WTO rulings would force us to change our domestic laws. I
warned this body that our participation in the WTO was
unconstitutional. Yet Members scoffed at this idea. Members of the Ways
and Means committee said it was ``unthinkable'' that the U.S. Congress
would change our nation's laws because of an order by the WTO. We were
told that we had to join or else we would lose the international
``trade wars.'' Today we see our sovereignty clearly undermined, and at
the same time we stand on the brink of a retaliatory trade war by the
EU. So the WTO has given us the worst of all worlds.
We should not change our tax laws at the behest of any body other
than the U.S. Congress. If we want to help American businesses, we
should simply stop taxing foreign source income. Today's FSC measure
will not appease the EU; they already have indicated that the House
version of this bill is unsatisfactory to them. Worst of all, this
measure gives the President further unconstitutional executive order
powers to make changes when demanded by the WTO in the future. Never
mind that the legislative power is supposed to reside solely with
Congress. We simply cede our legislative authority to the WTO when we
pass this measure, and it's shameful that it likely will go unnoticed
by the American people. We ought to tell them exactly what we are doing
to national sovereignty when we pass this last-minute mixed bag of tax
measures.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the leadership for bringing this
conference report to the floor. This conference report includes many
important provisions to spur individual retirement savings.
Most importantly, the report includes language that increases the IRA
contribution limit, a proposal I have worked on for several years. The
popularity of this issue is evidenced by the more than 222 bipartisan
members who cosponsored my IRA legislation.
For years, millions of Americans have relied on Individual Retirement
Accounts to help save for a secure retirement. However, despite their
past success, IRAs are in danger of becoming obsolete because inflation
is destroying much of their value. Since 1981 the limit on IRAs has
been frozen. Had it simply kept pace with inflation, Americans would
now be able to contribute $5,068 instead of only $2,000.
If IRAs are to continue to be a real help for people as they plan for
their retirement years, it is past time for the federal government to
allow higher contributions.
Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in reluctant
opposition to this bill. I am a staunch supporter of numerous
provisions in this legislation, and have a solid voting record in
support of many of these provisions in past measures. However, because
language was tucked into this bill at the last minute that would
overturn Oregon's assisted suicide law, I have no choice but to vote
against it.
I gave people my word that I would not come back to Congress and vote
to overturn what they have twice voted for. And as much as I strongly
support the tax relief and health care language in this legislation, I
cannot swallow the poison pill provision that would overturn Oregon's
law. Where I come from, a person's word still means something and I
intend to keep mine.
This legislation contains solid small business tax reductions,
pension reform, and help for rural communities for health care
improvements. I enthusiastically support these items and was fully
prepared to vote for them. As a small business owner, and having served
five years on a community hospital board, I understand the problems
facing our communities and believe these provisions would be of great
benefit to them. But to vote for them would mean I would also vote in a
way that was against what I had promised. That's something I just
cannot and will not do.
The provision to overturn Oregon's law only came to light shortly
before the House began debating this bill. It was a complete and
unwelcome surprise. And it has no business being tacked onto an
otherwise sound piece of tax reform and Medicare enhancement
legislation.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose HR 2614, the bill being
considered on the House floor today with the innocuous title of ``the
Certified Development Company Program Improvements.'' Those provisions
are far surpassed by major controversial tax, Medicare and Medicaid
proposals that have been added to it by the Republican leadership
without any consultation with our side of the aisle or the
Administration.
This bill is a stellar example of what goes wrong when the
legislative process is discarded and replaced with closed-door
negotiations among a few select members of the majority party. And, it
clearly spotlights the wrongheaded priorities of the Republican party.
On both the health front and the tax front, the bill before us today
is a disgrace. The provisions of this legislation squander real
opportunities to provide assistance to the families in our country who
need the most help and instead lavish funds on those who need it least.
It also provides gifts to industries that have thwarted our efforts to
pass a Patient's Bill of Rights, a Medicare prescription drug benefit,
and would prefer not to see an increase in the minimum wage.
On the Medicare front, nearly 40% of the spending is directed to the
HMO industry when only 16% of Medicare beneficiaries are even enrolled
in Medicare HMOs. HMOs will get $11 billion in new funds over 5 years
and more than $34 billion over 10 years. Yet, there are no real
accountability provisions that require these HMOs to commit to serve
beneficiaries for a longer period of time or to maintain a specific
level of benefits in exchange for these significant new dollars. That
is wrong.
On top of lacking real accountability, subsidies of this level to
HMOs simply defy the facts. The non-partisan General Accounting Office
has shown time and time again that Medicare HMOs are overpaid for the
patients they enroll. The latest data shows that Medicare spent $5.2
billion in 1998 that would not have been spent if those beneficiaries
had been enrolled in fee for service Medicare rather than the
Medicare+Choice program. And this is for a program that was created in
1997 under the guise that it would save money and be the long-term
solution to Medicare's solvency problems.
The Administration and many of us in Congress had urged that these
HMO subsidies be lowered, but that request fell on deaf ears. That
shouldn't surprise any of us since the HMO industry is financially
backing the Republican health care agenda through a media campaign
directed at issues and candidates. The efforts of this industry alone
were the most significant factor that halted Congress from enacting a
real, enforceable Patients' Bill of Rights this year.
However, even worse than the largess of the rewards to HMOs is the
first that those dollars squeeze out needed funds to other segments of
Medicare--particularly beneficiaries.
The most important improvement we could make for beneficiaries in
Medicare would be the addition of a Medicare prescription drug benefit.
The fact is this will be our only Medicare legislation this year. This
bill was our last
[[Page H11262]]
opportunity to deliver a Medicare prescription drug benefit for seniors
this year. Instead, there is nothing in here that helps the millions of
Medicare beneficiaries without drug coverage.
Earlier versions of this legislation reported by the Ways and Means
Health Subcommittee and the Commerce Committee included numerous
beneficiary provisions that would have made tangible improvements in
Medicare benefits for real people. Provisions that Republicans have
dropped during their closed door negotiation include:
Medicare coverage for victims of ALS, (Lou Gehrig's disease)--a bill
sponsored by 282 members of the House,
Improvements in Medicaid coverage of legal immigrants,
Allowing low-income Medicare beneficiaries the dignity of being able
to apply for financial assistance at Social Security Offices rather
than welfare offices, and
Providing states with greater flexibility to more easily enroll
children in the CHIP program.
In addition, there are numerous improvements for traditional Medicare
providers that we have tried to get considered, but to no avail.
Instead of funding HMOs, this legislation could have:
Given greater relief to our nation's hospitals, home health agencies,
and other traditional Medicare providers,
Required nursing homes to implement programs to improve quality for
our frail seniors who reside in these homes,
Done more to assist hospice programs serve the needs of terminally
ill beneficiaries.
There are also egregious provisions included in this legislation for
particular special interests. For example, the bill delays the Health
Care Financing Administration's ability to pay more accurately for the
few prescription drugs it now covers--a gift of at least $50 million to
a drug industry that has been lying to the taxpayers about their true
cost of sales. These are windfalls to the pharmaceutical industry pure
and simple--and they come at the expense of patients.
Several of the tax provisions included in this end-of-the-year
monster of a bill include provisions that claim to provide access to
health care for uninsured people in this country. Don't be fooled by
the rhetoric. These tax provisions are nothing more than thinly-veiled
attempts to further tax policies that benefit upper income Americans
and do nothing for those in middle and lower incomes.
The above the line tax deduction for people who purchase their own
health insurance certainly sounds like it would expand coverage. But,
because 93% of those without health insurance fall into the zero
percent tax bracket or 15% tax bracket, this tax change does nothing to
help them afford a health insurance policy. Those in the zero tax
bracket get nothing from the change and those in the 15% bracket get
only 15 cents on the dollar--not nearly enough to make a $6000 family
health insurance policy suddenly affordable. In fact, 94% of this
expensive program's cost goes to benefit people who already have health
insurance. It barely expands ``access'' at all and it spends tens of
billions of dollars not accomplishing its stated goal.
Our nation faces an upcoming crisis on long term care costs. The tax
changes proposed in this legislation do nothing to alter that fact.
Long term care health insurance continues to be of questionable
benefit at best. And, it is a product that only those with significant
financial means can afford to purchase. So, like the tax deduction
criticized above, this deduction will go mainly to people who could
have afforded to purchase long-term care insurance with or without the
tax benefit.
It is nice that the Republicans are finally recognizing the very real
problems facing caregivers for chronically ill family members at home.
Unfortunately, they have once again chosen to deal with a very real
problem for millions of American families and couples--many of them
lower income--by providing a tax deduction. Of course, tax deductions
provide the least help to those who pay the least taxes--the very
people who need financial assistance the most. By refusing to provide a
tax credit for caregivers--as the Administration and Democrats have
urged--the Republicans have greatly reduced the value of this policy
change for everyone outside of the upper income tax brackets.
The many additional tax provisions in this bill are designed to help
the CEO's who run the big companies--not the rank file Americans who
work for the big companies.
The school construction tax package falls $15 billion short of the
necessary funding to see that our deteriorating schools are modernized
and well-equipped so that our children can learn in a safe environment.
The average American public school is over forty years and old and
falling apart. Seventy-five percent of U.S. public schools report that
they need funding in order to bring the building into good overall
condition. The GOP doesn't see school construction as a dire need since
they would prefer to see the public school system dismantled. The
school construction funding level in this bill is unacceptable.
In addition to ignoring the needs of our children, the Republican
leadership has chosen to ignore the needs of the working men and women
who will help to construct and modernize our schools. The Davis-Bacon
Act has applied to contracts for public construction ``to which the
United States or the District of Columbia is a party'' since 1931. The
House Democrats insisted on providing prevailing wage protections in
any school construction tax package that came to the House floor. In
fact, we have already introduced a bipartisan school construction bill
that includes the prevailing wage provisions, cosponsored by 228 House
members--Democrats and Republicans. Once again, the GOP demonstrates
that they care nothing about working Americans when they eliminated the
prevailing wage protections for school construction.
I was one of 25 members of the House of Representatives to vote
against the pension tax bill the first time it was voted on. Not only
did the bill completely neglect to provide any tax incentives to help
lower-paid workers save for their retirement, but it actually
eliminated non-discrimination rules designed to protect the rank and
file worker. In hopes that the Senate would correct these egregious
provisions, many of my colleagues voted for the bill anyway. The Senate
Committee on Finance adopted provisions that would further weaken the
non-discrimination rules--rules that protect against disproportionate
pension benefits for higher-income workers. We should be strengthening
these rules to ensure that all working Americans save for their
retirement and middle-income earners have the same pension advantages
as their corporate bosses.
I commend my colleagues for including an increase in pension
portability for workers who change jobs in the bill before us today.
Workers don't remain at the same job over their careers and it is
important that we not penalize workers for changing jobs. I also
applaud my colleagues for seeing a need to provide relief on Section
415 benefit limits. Benefit formulas in collectively bargained plans
are not related to compensation. The current limits placed on multi-
employer pension plans unfairly reduce the pensions of low and middle-
income workers. Unfortunately, there aren't enough provisions in this
bill to help low and middle income workers to outweigh the far too many
provisions that will harm these same workers.
Finally, I completely oppose the repeal, and replacement, of the
Foreign Sales Corporation (FSC). The esoteric tax break is nothing more
than corporate welfare for some of the nation's most profitable
industries. The European Union has filed a complaint with the World
Trade Organization (WTO) that the FSC is an export tax subsidy and
therefore illegal under international trade laws. I completely agree.
Yet instead of repealing the tax subsidy and complying with our
international trade obligations, this bill seeks to remedy the FSC with
a near exact replacement.
The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy recently released a
report that shows a rise in pretax corporate profits by a total of 23.5
percent from 1996 through 1998. At the same time, corporate income tax
revenues only rose by a mere 7.7 percent. In addition to the myriad of
corporate tax deductions this Congress insists on expanding, programs
such as the FSC can help explain the disparity in corporate profits and
corporate income tax rates.
The FSC helps subsidize some of the most profitable industries such
as the pharmaceutical, tobacco and weapons export industries. Why
should Congress help out the pharmaceutical industry if the industry
insists on charging U.S. consumers more for prescription drugs than
they charge in Europe? We shouldn't! The pharmaceutical industry sells
prescription drugs in the U.S. at prices that are 190-400 percent
higher than what they charge in Europe. The U.S. subsidizes the
pharmaceutical industry by approximately $123 million per year through
the FSC. This is unfair to the American taxpayer and must not be
allowed to happen.
The top 20 percent of FSC beneficiaries obtained 87 percent of the
FSC benefit in 1998. The two largest FSC beneficiaries, General
Electric and Boeing, received almost $750 million and $686 million in
FSC benefits over 8 years, respectively. RJ Reynolds' FSC benefit
represents nearly six percent of its net income while Boeing's FSC
benefit represents twelve percent of its earnings!
We must stop pandering to corporate interests and the wealthy. This
bill does not have to be so weighted to the HMOs, drug companies, other
big business, and those with upper incomes. We must help low and
middle-income families obtain health care coverage and pay for
prescription drugs. We can do this by enacting a responsible minimum
wage bill, a targeted tax bill, and a balanced Medicare/Medicaid
package. H.R. 2614 is a shameful piece of legislation that I encourage
my colleagues to oppose.
[[Page H11263]]
It would take an hour for the Republicans to fix this bill. They know
what provisions we don't want in the bill and they know which ones we
want inserted. Those changes would redirect this bill to the people who
need the help--Medicare beneficiaries, traditional Medicare providers
who serve them, and the millions of people struggling to earn incomes
that allow them to provide for their families. Vote against this bill
today.
MR. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this bill for many reasons. This bill
fails to adequately address the critical need we have to renovate and
modernize our public schools. It falls way short of the bipartisan
Rangle/Johnson bill that would support nearly $25 billion in bonds over
the next two years to help states and districts build and modernize up
to 6,000 schools. It is shameful that in the era of budget surplus we
cannot make a decent investment in our public school buildings. Over
one-third of all schools need extensive repairs. The average school
building is 42 years old. Beyond that, a record of 52.7 million
children are enrolled in elementary and secondary schools, and the
number will increase by almost a half of million a year. By 2003, this
will mean we need to build another 2,400 schools just to keep pace with
student enrollment.
This bill also drops critical Davis-Bacon wage protections contained
in the bipartisan Rangle/Johnson bill. This means working families who
help build the schools, and others who work in the community will be
significantly shortchanged on wages and benefits. It also means that
communities will be shortchanged by substandard construction of
schools. This Congress should be about lifting hard-working families up
in the era of prosperity, not driving wages and benefits into the
ground.
I also want to note that, once again, the Majority has included a
minimum wage increase in a tax bill filed with poison pills. This
scheme allows the Majority to claim they're for a minimum wage
increase, while knowing full well they've blocked it by combining it
with a special interest tax bill that can't become law. Let's be clear
what this means. Democrats in Congress are for a minimum wage increase
and would take action to make it happen. Republicans in Congress want
to say they're for the minimum wage increase, while actively blocking
its passage.
I urge a no vote on this bill.
MR. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, improving retirement security has been a
top priority of our Committee and of this Congress. We must expand
access to private pension plans and make innovations that will maximize
every American's opportunity for a safe, secure retirement. We are
committed to strengthening the retirement security of workers and their
families by expanding private pension coverage and protecting their
pensions and retirement savings.
I want to address the important pension reform provisions contained
in the conference report before us. It includes 22 provisions from H.R.
1102, the Comprehensive Retirement Security and Pension Reform Act,
reported out of the Education and Workforce Committee on July 14, 1999
by a bipartisan voice vote.
These reforms will directly improve the retirement security of
millions of American workers by expanding small business retirement
plans, allowing workers to save more, making pensions more secure, and
cutting the red tape that has hamstrung employers who want to establish
pension plans for their employees. The ERISA reforms include: granting
relief from excessive PBGC premiums for new small business plans;
accelerating the vesting of workers' accounts; repealing and modifying
a wide range of unnecessary and outdated rules and regulations;
providing more frequent benefits statements to workers; requiring
enhanced disclosure and other protections when future pension benefits
are reduced (as in the case of conversion to a cash balance plan); and
repealing the so-called ``full funding limit'' that arbitrarily limits
defined benefit plan funding to a less than actuarially sound level.
I am very pleased at the bipartisan nature of these pension
provisions. The legislation reported out of our committee has a broad
spectrum of support, and subcommittee chairman John Boehner has been a
leader in this Congress on pension reform. He has maintained this
bipartisanship during his fine stewardship of the bill through our
committee.
Pensions provide a needed backstop to our Social Security system for
lower and middle-income workers--meaning the difference between
retirement subsistence and real retirement security for millions. Fully
77% of current pension participants are middle and lower income
workers. By taking action to expand pension availability this year, we
will help those workers who are most in need of secure retirement
savings.
I urge Members support for these changes that will improve the
retirement years of American workers.
Strengthening our private, employer-based pension system is a
critical issue for all Americans--especially the 76 million Baby
Boomers who are nearing retirement age. This legislation increases
retirement security for millions of Americans by strengthening that
``third leg'' of retirement security--our pension system. Today we take
an important bipartisan step towards ensuring that American workers
enjoy their golden years comfortable and secure.
General Leave
Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
includes extraneous material on H.R. 2614.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Missouri?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time has expired.
Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the conference
report.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 237,
nays 174, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 21, as follows:
[Roll No. 560]
YEAS--237
Aderholt
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dooley
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Fossella
Fowler
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holt
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Jones (NC)
Kasich
Kelly
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Manzullo
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Minge
Moore
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Oxley
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stabenow
Stearns
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Upton
Vitter
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--174
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Berman
Berry
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Doyle
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
[[Page H11264]]
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Pelosi
Phelps
Pickett
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shuster
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Waters
Watt (NC)
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Paul
NOT VOTING--21
Blagojevich
Bliley
Brady (PA)
Campbell
Chenoweth-Hage
Crowley
Danner
Franks (NJ)
Johnson, Sam
Klink
Lazio
Martinez
McCollum
McIntosh
Metcalf
Packard
Payne
Peterson (PA)
Spratt
Thompson (MS)
Waxman
____________________