[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 140 (Monday, October 30, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H11546-H11555]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S. 2485, SAINT CROIX ISLAND HERITAGE ACT

  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 663 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 663

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (S. 2485) 
     to direct the Secretary of the Interior to provide assistance 
     in planning and constructing a regional heritage center in 
     Calais, Maine. The bill shall be considered as read for 
     amendment. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening 
     motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Resources; and (2) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 2. A concurrent resolution consisting of the text 
     printed in section 3 is hereby adopted.
       Sec. 3. The text specified in section 2 is as follows:
       ``Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
     concurring), That, in the enrollment of 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 of the House of 
     Representatives shall make the following corrections:
       ``(1) In section 1, insert before `are hereby enacted into 
     law' the following: `, as modified in accordance with section 
     3,'.
       ``(2) In section 2, insert before the period at the end the 
     following: `, modified in accordance with section 3'.
       ``(3) Add at the end the following new section:

     `` `SEC. 3. MODIFICATION TO TEXT OF BILL ENACTED BY 
                   REFERENCE.

       `` `The modification referred to in sections 1 and 2 is to 
     the text of the bill H.R. 5538, as referred to in section 
     1(1), and is as follows: the quoted matter in the amendment 
     proposed to be made by section 2 of such bill is modified by 
     striking ``June 30, 2000'' and inserting ``December 31, 
     2000''.' ''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Diaz-Balart) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Moakley), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 663 is a closed rule providing for the 
consideration of S. 2485 to direct the Secretary of the Interior to 
provide assistance in planning and constructing a Regional Heritage 
Center in Calais, Maine. The rule also provides for the adoption of a 
concurrent resolution directing the Clerk of the House of 
Representatives to make certain corrections in the enrollment of the 
bill, H.R. 2614, to amend the Small Business Investment Act to make 
improvements to the certified development company, House Report 106-
1016.
  I want to make it clear that we are considering S. 2485. The text of 
the report that the Committee on Rules filed to accompany this 
resolution incorrectly states in the summary of the resolution that the 
resolution provides for the consideration of H. 2485 when in fact it 
was meant to state that the rule provides for the consideration of S. 
2485.
  The rule provides 1 hour of debate in the House divided equally 
between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Resources. Further, the rule waives all points of order against 
consideration of the bill and provides for one motion to recommit with 
or without instructions.
  Finally, the rule provides that a concurrent resolution directing the 
Clerk to make certain corrections to the enrollment of H.R. 2614 is 
adopted.
  Mr. Speaker, in essence what this two-part rule will accomplish is 
the following: the first part provides for the consideration of S. 
2485, which directs the Secretary of the Interior to work with Federal, 
State, and local agencies, historical societies and not-for-profit 
organizations to facilitate the development of a Regional Heritage 
Center in downtown Calais, Maine, before the 400th anniversary of the 
settlement of the Saint Croix Islands.
  Saint Croix Island is located in the Saint Croix River, which forms 
the boundary between Canada and the United States and the State of 
Maine. Now, in 1604 and 1605, Pierre Dugua Sieur de Mons, with his 
company, established a French settlement on the island predating the 
English settlement at Jamestown, Virginia, in 1607. Saint Croix Island 
International Historic Site is administered by the National Park 
Service, preserving the site as a monument to the beginning of the 
United States and of Canada.
  S. 2485 directs the Secretary of the Interior to work with Federal, 
State and local agencies, historical societies and nonprofits to 
provide assistance in planning, constructing and operating a Regional 
Heritage Center in downtown Calais. The bill authorizes the Secretary 
to enter into cooperative agreements, the appropriation of $2 million 
for design and construction of the facility, and such sums as are 
necessary to maintain and operate interpretive exhibits.
  The Congressional Budget Office estimates that implementing S. 2485 
would cost $2 million over the next 3 fiscal years. Additional annual 
expenses to help operate and maintain the center once it is completed 
in 2004 would not be significant.
  The bill was introduced by Senators Collins and Snowe of Maine on 
April 27, 2000, and passed the Senate by unanimous consent on October 
5.
  The second part of the rule dealing with the tax bill's enrollment 
and the minimum wage, is necessary because the Democratic leadership 
would not grant unanimous consent for the House to make this 
correction, which in essence helps to preserve the minimum wage. When 
drafting H.R. 5538, the portion of the tax relief bill providing for

[[Page H11547]]

increases in the minimum wage, there was an error which could have the 
unintended result of eliminating the minimum wage for a 6-month period. 
As a supporter of the minimum wage, I find it very difficult to believe 
but nevertheless recognize that the leadership on the other side of the 
aisle is playing politics with this issue. By opposing a unanimous 
consent request to make this technical yet critically important 
correction, the minority leadership is creating another roadblock to 
increasing the minimum wage and is actually serving in this situation 
to eliminate the minimum wage.
  The rule, Mr. Speaker, self-executes the adoption of a concurrent 
resolution which otherwise would not be privileged to make this 
technical correction so that the minimum wage will continue to exist 
while orderly increases in that wage take place from $5.15 an hour to 
$5.65 and then to $6.15 beginning January of 2002. So let no one be 
confused. The vote on the previous question and the vote on the rule is 
a vote on the minimum wage.
  I would like to repeat that, Mr. Speaker, if I may. The vote on the 
previous question and the vote on the rule is a vote on the minimum 
wage. I strongly support this rule and urge my colleagues to support it 
as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart), for yielding me the customary half hour, and 
I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the concurrent resolution for which this rule provides 
consideration will correct one of the mistakes in the tax bill that we 
passed last week. The way the bill was written, rather than raising the 
minimum wage, it really would have eliminated it from July 1, 2000, to 
December 31, 2000. So this concurrent resolution attempts to fix that. 
The problem, Mr. Speaker, is that is all this attempts to fix.
  Mr. Speaker, if my Republican colleagues are able to make changes to 
this bill to fix a 6-month minimum wage hiatus, I would recommend that 
they not stop there. This partisan tax package includes a tax break for 
special interests to the tune of $28 billion at the expense of the 
average American people. It does not include $25 million in interest-
free financing for school construction supported by a bipartisan group 
of 230 Members of Congress. That bill the President said he would sign, 
and it would enable 6,000 American schools to be modernized.
  Furthermore, the tax bill does not include funding for 100,000 new 
teachers, emergency school repairs, teacher training or after-school 
programs. Instead, Mr. Speaker, it contains tax relief for big 
businesses, HMOs, and insurance companies. It also does not do enough 
for hospitals that were hurt and hurt very badly by the balanced budget 
cuts in Medicare. Instead, Mr. Speaker, it directs a disproportionate 
amount of funds to the HMOs, who only serve 15 percent of the Medicare 
enrollees but get 40 percent of the funding.
  Despite a few good points, Mr. Speaker, the overall tax package is 
really a disaster, and I urge my colleagues to insist that it be 
changed by opposing the previous question. If the previous question is 
defeated, I will offer an amendment to fix the minimum wage and the 
Balanced Budget Act so they can be signed into law.
  My amendment, Mr. Speaker, would also raise the national minimum wage 
from $5.15 an hour to $6.15 an hour over the next year. It will also 
repair some of the damage done to the hospitals by Medicare and 
Medicaid cuts in the Republican Balanced Budget Act by providing a full 
hospital and hospice inflation update for 2 years. In contrast, Mr. 
Speaker, the Republican bill has only a 1-year update, then it makes 
cuts in the second year.
  Mr. Speaker, the President has made it abundantly clear that a vote 
for the previous question is a vote against the minimum wage. A vote 
for the previous question is also a vote against fixing the Medicare 
and Medicaid cuts made by the Republican Balanced budget amendment. So 
I urge my colleagues to raise the minimum wage. I urge my colleagues to 
strengthen Medicare and Medicaid by defeating the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I am not so sure we are talking about the 
same bill, with all due respect to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Moakley). The original minimum wage bill that was included in the 
tax package was $1 spread out over 3 years. The President of the United 
States wanted $1 over 2 years. I worked hard with Republican leaders to 
look at that aspect; and included in the tax package is a minimum wage 
increase of $1 over 2 years, that the President had asked for, and it 
is noninflationary due to the following reason, and I support the tax 
provisions in the bill, and I urge the President to sign this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, if that boss does not get a helping hand, he will grant 
that minimum wage by law, but he will lay off some of those very people 
we are trying to help at the bottom end of the ladder due to the 
constraints that may be placed upon him. I think there is fairness in 
this bill.
  I have been listening to all of this talk about HMOs and hospitals. I 
want someone to tell me what hospital association or group opposes this 
bill? They all support the bill. But let us look now at managed care, 
which is really managed costs. This did not just happen in the last 6 
years. We have seen these dynamics in the last 20 years; and they were 
not fixed by either party so the private sector gave us the cold 
turkey. The private sector started making decisions based on dollars. I 
have to give credit to the bill that has been passed that is going to 
be sent to the President. It does make some good changes in the right 
direction.
  Let us talk about the minimum wage. If we vote against this rule, we 
are voting against the minimum wage, because all it was was a technical 
error in the drafting that says the following: not less than $5.15 an 
hour during the period ending June 30, and that was a technical error. 
The language should have been, during the period ending December 31 of 
the year 2000. We have pension reform in this bill.
  Let us now talk about the school concerns my colleagues have. I 
support my colleagues on those school concerns, and there is a Labor-
HHS bill to deal with that. It is not and should not be in a tax bill. 
The tax bill is specific. This particular rule makes that clerical 
change, the technical correction that is needed. I want to thank the 
leadership for doing it. I think the Democrat party should have done 
this on unanimous consent, and should have done it wholeheartedly. The 
President's $1 over 2 years is in this tax bill, and the President 
should take a very good look at the tax provisions. They are good for 
America, they are good for workers, they are good for retirees, they 
are good for investment, they are good for the boss, and they are good 
for the workers.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I am constantly amazed at the rhetoric on this floor. The vote on 
the rule and the previous question has nothing to do with minimum wage, 
but it has everything to do with correcting another mistake. It has 
been acknowledged that a mistake was made. Quite frankly, there are a 
lot of mistakes being made the way we are legislating around here, but 
this is an honest mistake that was made that is being corrected, and 
there is no disagreement from anyone on correcting that mistake.
  By defeating the previous question, it will allow us to correct 
another mistake. The vote on this rule is a vote about allowing the 
House to work in a bipartisan way to provide our rural and urban 
hospitals, teaching hospitals, home health providers, nursing homes and 
beneficiaries that they get the assistance and the relief that they 
need. By voting against the previous question, we can vote on a 
responsible package that corrects the shortcomings of the Medicare 
package that the Republican leadership put together last week, a 
mistake.

[[Page H11548]]

  Let me remind everyone, the same people that have been eloquently 
defending their package of what they are doing are the same people that 
wrote the Balanced Budget Agreement of 1997. That ought to bother some 
of my friends on this side. The same people.
  Now, we should have a full hospital prospective payment system update 
for 2 years, not just 1. Our rural hospitals need certainty. They do 
not need the continued uncertainty. They have had themselves dug into a 
hole by the cuts of the Balanced Budget Agreement that the same people 
that wrote believe now is a new solution.
  It provides improving the formula for rural disproportionate share of 
hospitals. In addition, the provisions in the Republican-passed bill, 
the proposal that we can vote on in a moment, what we are trying to 
offer, would provide for a higher level of reimbursement for hospitals 
serving low-income individuals. All of us that represent those 
constituents know that is needed.
  It provides a 10 percent bonus for rural home health agencies to 
compensate for the high cost of travel, lower volume of patients seen 
per hour, and we know that is needed. It provides a 2-year delay in the 
15 percent cut in payments for home health agencies instead of the 
Republicans' 1-year delay. Surely we can reach a bipartisan compromise 
on this.
  A mistake was made. A mistake was made. We can correct this mistake 
by voting down the previous question.
  Again, we keep talking about how do we resolve this? Why did the 
leadership not accept the President's offer to meet yesterday to 
discuss an agreement of responsible tax relief in a Medicare package 
that provides assistance to health care providers as well as 
beneficiaries instead of providing over 40 percent of the funding for 
HMOs? Why did we not? We keep blaming, talking about world series games 
and all of this. That is history. Yesterday, the President was there.
  Let me repeat what I said during the previous debate so our leaders 
can hear clearly, because they have failed to hear previously equally 
blunt statements. We will not have a final agreement that allows us to 
leave here without making sure we have given our health care providers 
the relief that they must have. We can do this in a bipartisan way. We 
can get over this anger, we can get over all of whatever it is that we 
are talking about. That is what this vote is on the previous question. 
Vote down the previous question and allow us to correct a mistake in 
Medicare and Medicaid for our hospitals and providers and nursing 
homes.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham).
  (Mr. CUNNINGHAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I think this resolution speaks to the 
reasons that we are here today. We could come together on a lot of 
things, and we have over this Congress and previous Congresses, but 
there is a lot at stake, and that is the election of 2000. I think 
there has been partisanship on both sides of the aisle, and I would say 
that the majority of both Republicans and Democrats detest what we have 
to go through here on this House floor.
  I want to tell my colleagues that there are things like Medicare and 
the health care package that the gentleman from Texas just spoke about. 
Is it perfect? No. California has probably more health care providers 
than any other State. It was put there to cut and reduce the expanding 
cost of health care, but yet still give quality health care. Medicare 
was going to go bankrupt. I heard about Medicare cuts. Even when the 
President signed the Medicare bill, Republicans tried to expand, and 
did expand Medicare from going bankrupt over 27 years.
  There is rhetoric from that side of the aisle time and time and time 
again. The unions put over $100 million against our proposal to save 
Medicare. Even as the President signed it and now Al Gore takes credit 
for it, the expansion of Medicare, the leadership on that side fought 
against it. The Balanced Budget Agreement that I just heard about, Alan 
Greenspan said it is one of the key issues in why the economy is good 
today.
  Welfare reform. We have billions of dollars coming into the 
government from working Americans instead of billions of dollars going 
out.
  Capital gains reductions. My colleagues said, oh, that is just a tax 
break for the rich. But again, Alan Greenspan said it is one of the key 
factors that not only created jobs and expanded the economy, but it 
paid for itself.
  Listen to the debate over here. Everything that expanded the economy, 
the Democrat leadership fought against. As a matter of fact, not a 
single Clinton-Gore budget ever passed the House or the Senate from 
1994 through now, but yet they claim the responsibility for the 
economy. And in 1993, we call it a tax increase, they call it an 
economic package. They increased the tax on Social Security, and we did 
away with that. They took every dime out of the Social Security 
Medicare trust fund; we put it into a lockbox, but yet they fought 
that.
  For a year the ranking minority member said, we want a tax cut for 
the middle class. First of all, I would ask my colleagues not to use 
the term ``middle class.'' There are no middle class citizens in this 
country. There is middle income, but not middle class. But yet, even in 
that package, they increase the tax on the middle income, and we are 
talking about the extremism of the leadership on that side. I think 
after November 7, they may have a new ranking minority member on the 
Democrat side, because the extreme measures that the Democrats have 
gone through have not served them well.
  Mr. Speaker, if my colleagues on the other side want this to come 
together with a package that is supported by the people that we are 
trying to help, because the hospitals support it; the National Hospital 
Association supports this package. It gives them the money they needed. 
I have hospitals in my district, many, and because of illegals, Irish 
illegal immigrants, if you want, are going to emergency services, 
driving up the cost of health care, and the overhead and the legal 
liability is killing our hospitals, and they need the additional funds. 
The nursing homes and the rest that my colleagues quoted, those 
organizations support the bill. But yet, my colleagues would fight us 
on that side.
  Mr. Speaker, I would ask that yes, we will have campaign finance 
reform, but it will also deal with the unions, which John McCain 
supports, by the way, but he knows that the President would veto it. 
Yes, I think in the new President, I think if it is Governor Bush, that 
we will have meaningful and workable, and you will enjoy it, 
nonpartisanship.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member 
of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California gave a lot of 
answers to questions that never were asked, but if we are going to get 
out of this Congress, and he represents the moderate view on the other 
side, we have far more difficulties that I expected.
  All we are asking is that we vote down the previous question to give 
us an opportunity to create a rule that can deal with some of the 
problems that keep us here locked into the Congress. I would like to 
believe on the question of minimum wage that there are just as many 
Republicans that would like to get a vote on this as there are 
Democrats. This would give us an opportunity not only to correct the 
mistake that obviously has been made by the Republicans, but to give us 
once again an opportunity to go to the table and work out something 
that we can conclude is good for the American people and go home.

                              {time}  1300

  Clearly, we have a bill before us, the St. Croix Island Heritage Act; 
and Republicans now are trying to put the minimum wage repeal 
correction on it, which means they want to correct the mistake that 
they have made.
  We want to correct both of these mistakes by having a better rule 
that gives us an opportunity to have a balanced budget giveback bill 
that really helps the hospitals in the rural areas and the inner-
cities. And, certainly,

[[Page H11549]]

this would give us an opportunity to get out of Washington and get back 
home and get into our districts.
  It makes no difference how much we lock into what we honestly 
believe. The only way we can succeed is by coming together in some type 
of an agreement. We all may not get all of the things that we want, but 
certainly there is some basic things that we think that should be 
included in a bill for us to get home. The rural disproportionate share 
hospitals, in addition to provisions in the Republican-passed bill, 
provides for higher level of reimbursement for rural hospitals that are 
serving low-income individuals.
  My colleagues are not going to tell me that any national, State, or 
regional hospital association would not believe that hospitals are 
really having fiscal problems, whether in the rural areas or whether in 
the inner-cities, because low-income people or working people with no 
insurance have an inability to pay. This is something that we should 
want to fix, not as Democrats, not as Republicans, but as Members of 
Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, so as Republicans have made mistakes with the minimum 
wage in not wanting to repeal it in its entirety, why not come back, 
revisit it, and give a minimum wage for all the American people to 
have, and also include with that a decent tax cut for small business 
employers. Let us try to work together and get out of here and go home 
and try to earn reelection, at least for the Democrats.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I ask for the remaining time on each 
side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Diaz-Balart) has 15\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) has 20\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maine (Mr. Baldacci), the House sponsor of the St. Croix Island 
Heritage Act with the center being established in Calais, Maine.
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), the ranking member, for yielding me this 
time and for his leadership on the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. Speaker, as the sponsor of the legislation on the House side, 
H.R. 4815, that was a companion bill to the Senate bill that was 
introduced by Senator Collins and Senator Snowe, I would like to just 
speak to that portion that deals with the St. Croix Island Heritage 
Act, which is located in Calais, Maine, on the border between Maine and 
New Brunswick. It has been referred to as St. Croix Island River, which 
is the international boundary between the United States and Canada, the 
only international historic site in the National Parks system located 8 
miles down river from Calais, Maine.
  St. Croix Island is the site of one of the first French attempts in 
1604 to colonize the territory they called Acadia. It is one of the 
first locations of the earliest European settlements in North America. 
The island lies west of the international border and can be seen from a 
National Park Service sighting on the main shore of the St. Croix 
River. The island can also be seen from a Parks Canada facility on the 
New Brunswick shore of the St. Croix River.
  The Down East Heritage Center, which this legislation seeks to 
authorize, seeks to preserve, interpret, and develop the historical, 
cultural, and natural resources of Maine's most eastern region, 
Washington County. Through the interpretation and preservation of the 
rich resources in this vast and rural area, the Down East Heritage 
Center will promote economic development, support educational programs, 
and become a leading destination for heritage tourism.
  The Down East Heritage Center is a project of the St. Croix Economic 
Alliance and the Sunrise Economic Council. Historically, it has been a 
hub of shipping commerce on the St. Croix River. The Calais waterfront 
is being revitalized as part of a comprehensive waterfront development 
plan. In eastern Maine, a remnant of quiet wilderness flourishes. The 
watershed of Passamaquoddy Bay reaches from forested uplands fed by 
pristine brooks and rivers and dotted with ancient bog lands to tidal 
shores at the Bay of Fundy's mouth in the Gulf of Maine.
  It is a region of enormous tides, rocky island cliffs, and seabirds 
colonies, rafts of seals, pods of whales, salmon runs and fishing 
eagles. The St. Croix River connects a wide variety of habitat that, in 
turn, supports a diversity of plan and animal species. It is also a 
place of diverse cultures from the Passamaquoddy, the ``People of the 
Dawn,'' to the first European settlers on the Island of St. Croix in 
1604.
  I support this legislation. It is supported by the Parks Service. It 
is supported by the administration.
  Mr. Speaker, I also would like to have entered into the Record the 
statement by the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), who is a 
frequent visitor of Calais, Maine, and has numerous friends and would 
like to have that entered into the Record.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. We have, at this point, no other speakers. We may have 
another.
  Mr. Speaker, I was shown a copy of the previous question amendment 
that the minority is proposing. They propose to strike H.R. 5543, which 
is the Medicare giveback bill, which by the way is supported by all 
providers. Now, the handout that the other side has given their Members 
talks about HMOs and HMOs and HMOs.
  No, no, no. All providers support the increase in Medicare which we 
have achieved, and this legislation provides for $31.5 billion over 5 
years. Now they want to substitute it with a bill that we are still 
waiting for. We have not even seen a copy.
  So I have learned a lot in my 8 years here, but I have to admit this 
is one of the most amazing things I have seen, coming to the floor and 
opposing legislation in the context of a technical correction with 
which we are seeking to keep the minimum wage on the books, and in the 
context of opposing that technical correction, seeking to strike 
legislation that provides for over $30 billion for providers for 
Medicare, and not even having shown us, the other side of the aisle, a 
copy of the legislation.
  Well, I never cease to learn in this process. But that is what the 
other side, our friends on the other side of the aisle, are proposing 
to do at this time. So it is amazing.
  Mr. Speaker, what we are doing, and I want to reiterate, what we are 
doing is a technical correction to make sure that the minimum wage 
stays on the books. And so opposing the rule at this point, and 
opposing the previous question, I reiterate, is opposing what we are 
seeking to do today, which is to make sure that the minimum wage stays 
on the books.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
just to tell the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) that ours 
does the same thing to the minimum wage as theirs does, but we just go 
a little further in other matters.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Pallone).
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I ask that we defeat the previous question 
and allow the Democrats to bring up an initiative which the gentleman 
from Florida is very much aware of. It basically seeks, among other 
things, to correct a lot of the health care inequities that the 
Republicans have refused to address in this Congress.
  Now, we know that what the Republican tax bill did was to basically 
give all the money to the HMOs, or most of the money to the HMOs 
because they are their special-interest friends. The Republicans refuse 
to bring up the Patients' Bill of Rights. They refuse to bring up a 
prescription drug program.
  The Democrats are saying simply that we want to correct this 
situation and make sure if the HMOs are going to get more money that 
they have to provide a 3-year guarantee that they are going to continue 
with the program with the seniors who sign up and that they get the 
same level of benefits, including prescription drugs. That makes sense 
for the average person.
  Mr. Speaker, we are worried about the average person and how they are 
going to benefit from these health care initiatives.
  At the same time what we are saying too is that we are going to try 
to address the Patients' Bill of Rights in a

[[Page H11550]]

small way by improving the appeals provisions for Medicare 
beneficiaries in this bill. The other thing we have been saying is that 
too much money is going to the HMOs and not enough to the hospitals and 
the home health care agencies and the nursing homes that need more 
money, because a lot of them are closing or not able to provide a 
sufficient quality health care. So we correct that as well.
  Finally, what we have been saying is that the Republicans refuse to 
do anything to improve the problem for the uninsured. There are 42 
million Americans that have no health insurance. We passed a bill a few 
years ago that expanded health care insurance for children, the CHIPS 
program, and we have had a number of other ideas. But the Republicans 
instead, they come up with this above-line tax deduction in their tax 
bill that does not help anybody but people who already have health 
insurance.
  Mr. Speaker, what we are doing in this motion, if we are allowed to 
bring it up, is we are saying we want to expand the kids health care 
initiative, the CHIPS program. We want to enroll more children. We are 
trying in a small way with our initiative here today to make sure that 
the HMOs have to provide the same level of benefits for 3 years. They 
have to make sure that there is some way to deal with the Patients' 
Bill of Rights and try to enroll more children. It is a small measure, 
but at least something for the average guy.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Menendez), vice chair of the Democratic Caucus.
  (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida, my dear 
friend, says he is amazed at what he sees on the floor. So am I.
  The title of this legislation is the St. Croix Island Heritage Act. 
But Republicans have to use this legislation in order to fix their 
sloppy, inefficient, incompetent form of legislating that has been 
brought to the floor.
  It is Republicans ramming through legislation, and I am so glad to 
hear Governor Bush talk about bipartisanship. He needs to make a phone 
call to the majority of his party here to talk to them about creating 
bipartisanship, because it is ramming through the legislation without 
even talking to Democrats that caused, in part, a major mistake, 
leaving minimum wage workers without protection for 6 months.
  Mr. Speaker, thank God for Democrats who pointed out to the 
Republican majority the error which today they seek to fix. It is 
Democrats who fought for the minimum wage increase, bringing 
Republicans kicking and screaming to this issue. And who, in fact, are 
here today fighting once again not only for the working men and women 
to fix that mistake, but also to fix the mistake they have made on our 
hospitals, urban, rural, and teaching hospitals, to ensure that all in 
the community will have the access to the services they provide.
  Mr. Speaker, we deserve to fix the mistakes not only on the minimum 
wage, but we also deserve to fix the mistakes that Republicans have 
made in reference to our hospitals. They allowed, through their errors, 
through their process, and through ramming it through, to leave the 
lowest wage earners subject to the corporate excesses of the 
marketplace. Now they would leave our hospitals to be ravaged by the 
corporate excesses of the HMO.
  That is something we cannot tolerate. It is not something working men 
and women can accept. And that is why we must defeat the previous 
question.
  Give us an opportunity to save our hospitals, and, yes, to save the 
working men and women of this country who were left exposed.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, what we are doing in this legislation, and it was 
brought up previously by speakers on the other side of the aisle, 
technical mistakes are common. Unfortunately, they occur. They are 
scriveners errors, and they are resolved with unanimous consent 
requests. But what is amazing is that the unanimous consent request to 
fix the minimum wage, so it stays on the books for the 6 months that it 
would have been taken off the books if we would not have fixed it 
today, that fixing it would not have been agreed to by the Democrats by 
unanimous consent.
  Mr. Speaker, that is really amazing. So we are fixing that scriveners 
mistake with this rule so the minimum wage will stay on the books. 
Again, I repeat, a vote on the previous question and a vote on the rule 
is a vote on the minimum wage.
  In addition to that, we have legislation that the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thomas) and others have worked on for months to provide 
over $30 million to the providers, to the medical providers in this 
country. It is supported by the medical providers across the board. 
$31.5 billion over 5 years in increases in Medicare and providers 
throughout the United States are supporting that measure.

                              {time}  1315

  Yet, the other side now comes with a stealth bill, a secret bill that 
still we are waiting to see, saying that they want to fix other issues. 
No, no. We have a public bill, $31.5 billion for providers, supported 
by all medical providers, and we are hit, then, with a stealth bill.
  So we would like to see the stealth bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, may I request the amount of time remaining 
for both sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) has 13 minutes remaining. The gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) has 11\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Turner).
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I think it is somewhat disingenuous for our 
friends on the Republican side to advocate their Medicare give-back 
bill just claiming providers support it. The truth is, if one asks any 
of the Medicare providers and any of the hospitals if they prefer the 
version that they put on the floor or the version that we are trying to 
offer, I can assure my colleagues they will support that which we are 
trying to offer.
  I want to read to my colleagues a letter I have from my hospital 
administrator from Jasper, Texas. I am trying to help many of my rural 
hospitals. Here is what he has to say: ``We are extremely concerned 
because as the present language reads in the Bill, one-third to one-
half of BBA relief over 10 years would go to the HMOs, leaving less for 
providers and beneficiaries in East Texas.''
  The truth of the matter is only 16 percent of the Medicare 
beneficiaries in this country are enrolled in HMO Medicare+Choice 
plans. Under the Republican version of this bill, 40 percent of the 
money goes to those HMOs. That is just not right. It is not going to 
save our rural hospitals. We can do better.
  Mr. Speaker, I include the letter from the Christus Jasper Memorial 
Hospital Administrator for the Record, as follows:

                                                   Christus Jasper


                                            Memorial Hospital,

                                     Jasper, TX, October 18, 2000.
     Congressman Jim Turner
     Cannon House Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Turner: I am writing to you as CEO/
     Administrator of CHRISTUS Jasper Memorial Hospital in Jasper, 
     Texas, a small and rural Catholic hospital serving the 
     citizens of Southeast Texas. We are still reeling from the 
     devastating cuts of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and are 
     seeking relief at your hands. We are asking for a full market 
     basket update from Medicare inpatient services in 2001 and 
     2002 and also expand health care coverage from legal 
     immigrants.
       We are extremely concerned because as the present language 
     reads in the Bill, one-third to one-half of BBA relief over 
     10 years would go to HMOs, leaving less for provider and 
     beneficiaries in East Texas, such as CHRISTUS Jasper Memorial 
     Hospital. Further, the Bill does not prohibit HMOs from 
     dropping benefits or leaving the community as they have done 
     here in Texas and left many of our patients without HMO 
     coverage. We need your help.
       Also rural hospitals need additional help by passing re-
     basing of sole community provider status and also Medicare 
     dependent hospital status, as we are both.
       I will be glad to discuss this with you at any time 
     concerning this very vital issue. If

[[Page H11551]]

     you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
           Sincerely,
                                            George N. Miller, Jr.,
                                                CEO/Administrator.

  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas). Perhaps he has a 
copy of the stealth bill.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding me this time.
  I do not have a copy of the bill that was introduced today. But if 
anyone wants to know what it contains, it would be a little bit like 
going to an editing room of a movie producer and picking up all the 
pieces that have been cut out of the movie on the floor and then 
stitching it together and calling it a movie, for example.
  It is my understanding that, for hospitals, instead of the negotiated 
agreement, which was more generous for hospitals than was contained, 
for example, in the Committee on Ways and Means Subcommittee on Health 
bill in which all of the Democrats on the subcommittee voted 
unanimously, it says that hospitals should get a 2-year market basket 
update. Does that sound fair? Let them have a 2-year market basket 
update.
  However, if one reviews the history of financing of hospitals, one 
will discover this, and I apologize for doing this, because, 
apparently, facts in history are supposed to be checked at the 
cloakroom door as we come to the floor of the House and simply make up 
whatever moves someone about dollar amounts or percentage payments. But 
for what it is worth, the last time hospitals got a 1-year market 
basket update was in 1985. The average over the last decade for market 
basket updates have been market basket minus 1.7.
  So what is being provided in the bill that passed the floor is market 
basket the 1st year, so for the first time since 1985, and then an 
adjustment from current law, which is market basket 1.1. That is six-
tenths of a point better than what they have averaged over the last 
decade. We cut that in half. So it is twice as good as current law in 
terms of the percentage adjustment. We continue that for 2 more years. 
The hospitals have said that is fine. They are comfortable.
  Now, what I hear is one of the most amazing arguments one will ever 
hear anywhere. Well, but the providers would like our bill better. 
Well, if they thought it had a chance of becoming reality, they would. 
Who would turn down more money? The question that one really has to put 
to the providers: Do you want the bird in hand, or do you want try to 
get the bird in the bush? The answer is the providers are more than 
happy with what we have done.
  However, what one really needs to do is take a look at the bill, when 
and if we get a copy in legislative language. I know it was introduced 
about 20 minutes ago. What one will find is, for example, our friends 
on the other side using arguments like a 2-year freeze on the graduate 
medical education. The phrase they use is from their notes: Provides 
help to the Nation's premier teaching and research hospitals.
  Read that in New York City. New York City has ripped off the graduate 
medical education program for more than a decade, funding their basic 
welfare costs out of the Federal taxpayers. Last year, with the 
agreements of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and the Senator 
from New York, Mr. Moynihan, that we would in the 1999 refinement bill 
make these modest adjustments to begin to create a more level playing 
field between all of our fine teaching hospitals; and this attempts to 
undo that agreement.
  But when one reads on, one finds that, in fact, just last night, we 
defeated a motion to instruct to require Medicare+Choice programs to 
stay in an area for 3 years. Of course all the arguments made were the 
correct ones. But here we go. They lost last night, and guess what? Off 
of the cutting room floor is another little snippet picked up and 
folded back in, exactly the same thing.
  But when one begins to read the fine print in terms of their reaching 
out to assist various groups, especially in the area of disabled 
children, who does not want to help disabled children? But while Al 
Gore points to Governor Bush and says he has a tax cut for the 
wealthiest 1 percent, what we have in this bill is a benefit for 
disabled children whose families, whose families have a 600 percent of 
poverty level. How ironic. The same 1 percent that Al Gore says are 
being benefited by George Bush's tax provision, they want to provide 
disabled children assistance, 600 percent of poverty. That is the kind 
of fine tuning they want for these government programs.
  When one takes a look at this package, it is all of the snippets from 
the cutting room floor. There really is not anything about patient 
protections. There is not anything about prescription drugs. It is a 
clear attempt to run through programs that were brought up, voted down 
in committee, but desired nonetheless to produce a package that is 
conservatively in the $50 billion to $60 billion range. But of course 
we do not know for sure. We have not seen the language of the bill 
itself. Of course, the Congressional Budget Office has not scored it.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, there is no mystery. There is nothing stealth 
about what we are doing. We are taking a bill that my colleagues put 
together, putting accountability into it for HMOs, and adding the 
provisions that many of us have been working for and the President laid 
out clearly in his veto message or the message which indicated he might 
veto it. There is nothing secretive about it.
  The reason hospitals are in difficult shape the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thomas) talks about since the mid-1980s, is because, in 
1997, behind closed doors, talking about a stealth procedure, there 
were cuts made in reimbursement provisions way beyond what anyone 
imagined. The impact of those cuts is way beyond, way beyond what 
anyone expected.
  Let me just mention the provisions that we are working for. The 
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), an hour ago, came to this 
floor in vain against illegal immigrants. I think he misshaped that 
argument saying we were trying to totally open the doors. No, we wanted 
equity for people who are here under the same circumstances as we 
granted amnesty to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) for 
those people that he represents.
  Now we are arguing that legal immigrants, legal immigrants should be 
able, under State option, to receive Medicaid benefits. There is a 
letter here from three Governors urging that my colleagues grant it, 
including the Governor of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart). 
He just gives it the back of his hand, no the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Diaz-Balart) personally. Because we stood out on the grass here a 
month ago, or whenever it was, urging that the gentleman's party grant 
the States the right to cover children and pregnant women legal 
immigrants. His party says no to it.
  Now, in terms of hospitals, look, all we are suggesting is, in the 
2nd year, my colleagues not cut, because of the impact of the 1997 
balanced budget agreement. There is nothing revolutionary. I know where 
my hospitals, the ones that I represent and in the metropolitan area 
are. They want something other than my colleagues have provided in this 
bill.
  People with Lou Gehrig's Disease, they will not act. People who have 
other needs, other preventative conditions, they act on some, but they 
will not act on others. So we have been pleading with them to do so.
  We have also asked, in terms of the Children's Health Initiative 
Program, for some assistance to the States so they will do better than 
Texas in terms of covering uninsured kids.
  There is nothing stealth about this. It is very much in the open. We 
want a better bill than my colleagues have provided, a considerably 
better bill. Give us the chance. Their fear is, if we can bring it up, 
so many Members on their side will vote with us, we will pass it.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Levin) has knowledge, has personal

[[Page H11552]]

knowledge of a number of the items that he is pushing and that he is 
proposing, and some of which I very much agree with. I have no doubt.
  What I am saying when I say stealth legislation is that we do not 
have a copy, and it was filed 20 minutes ago. That is what I am saying. 
That cannot be denied.
  So the reality of the matter is that we are debating here with regard 
to large figures and significant pieces of legislation which are 
included in a bill that has just been filed.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Thomas).
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want just to briefly indicate, and I know the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) feels strongly about the issue, he 
referenced the current law of the land as having been written behind 
closed doors. Perhaps he was not in the room when I indicated that the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and the Senator from New York, Mr. 
Moynihan, were in the room when we dealt with the issues in the 
Refinement Act of 1999.
  I believe the closed door session he was referring to was the one 
that produced the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 on which was voted on in 
the Committee on Ways and Means, passed 34 to 1, came to the floor, was 
passed overwhelmingly, and which the administration negotiated and 
requested reductions, further reductions in payments to hospitals and 
other health care providers.
  In fact, the President's budget at that time said that the Medicare 
providers should be reduced by more than $125 billion over the 10 
years. We fought the President. We thought it should not have been cut 
that much.
  Yet, here we are being criticized for making sure that they were not 
cut as much as their President wanted to cut them, and it was not 
behind closed doors. In fact, it was participated in by the 
administration. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) should be 
pleased that Republicans fought back against the President's $125 
billion additional cuts so that the adjustments that we are making now 
are modest ones referred to both in the 1999 bill and in this one as 
refinements instead of massive needs to infuse if, in fact, the 
President's program had been agreed to.
  We did not think it was right then. We do not think it is right now. 
The idea of a balanced modest refinement of about $30 billion is 
appropriate. This particular bill we believe is about $50 billion to 
$60 billion, consisting of all the items that were left on the cutting 
room floor when a reasonable and appropriate package were put together.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, may I again inquire as to the time 
remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 8\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) has 
3\1/2\ minutes remaining.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I come to the House floor today to urge a 
``no'' vote on the previous question in order that we may bring up a 
clean minimum wage increase bill and a clean Medicare giveback bill. 
The resolution that we have before us today does not give us the 
opportunity to focus on what is one of the most important pieces of 
legislation before this Congress.
  For 2 years, we have been hearing from constituents in the health 
care community about the dire need to restore funding cuts made in the 
Medicare program in 1997. The Medicare funding is vital to rural and 
teaching hospitals, home health agencies and others who were put in 
financial distress by those Medicare cuts of 1997 and literally could 
mean the difference between staying open and having to shut their 
doors.
  In my southern Wisconsin district, the additional payments are badly 
needed for providers like St. Clare Hospital in Baraboo and the Monroe 
Hospital and Clinics. It is time to stop playing politics with these 
vital issues that so strongly impact the lives and health of the people 
that we represent.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Luther).
  Mr. LUTHER. Mr. Speaker, I am here to highlight certain language that 
is in the Democratic alternative. The language I refer to was language 
that was introduced earlier this year by the gentlewoman from New 
Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) and myself. We introduced the legislation back in 
July of this year, and it was also included in the Medicare giveback 
bill that was reported out of the House Committee on Commerce. The 
language recognizes the great disparity that exists today between the 
costs and benefits of what seniors in States like Minnesota and New 
Mexico receive compared to what seniors in other States receive.
  Our language will establish new minimum floor payments and provide 
relief to Minnesota seniors who are unfairly treated under the 
Medicare+Choice program. Unfortunately, health plans have been rapidly 
withdrawing from Medicare+Choice in Minnesota. Those that have remained 
in the program offer Minnesota seniors only minimal health care 
coverage, along with high premiums and copayments. However, in other 
States with high reimbursement rates, seniors enjoy Medicare benefits 
such as prescription drug coverage at no additional cost. This is 
unfair. Our legislation takes an important first step in rectifying 
that problem and in creating the right kind of incentives for an 
efficient health care delivery system in this country.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the sponsors of the Democratic 
alternative for including this language in the alternative.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, because 
only if the previous question is defeated will the House be permitted 
to correct the minimum wage and the Medicare giveback measures in a way 
that they can be enacted into law.
  Mr. Speaker, if the previous question is defeated, I will offer a 
germane amendment to the rule to fix the small business bill so that 
the President will sign it.
  Mr. Speaker, the text of my amendment is as follows:

Previous Question Amendment Conference Report on the Saint Croix Island 
                              Heritage Act

       In the resolution, strike section 3 and insert the 
     following:
       ``Sec. 3. The text specified in section 2 is as follows:
       Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
     concurring), That in the enrollment of 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 of the House of 
     Representatives shall make the following corrections:
       (1) In section 1, insert before ``are hereby enacted into 
     law'' the following: ``as modified in accordance with section 
     3,''.
       (2) In section 2, insert before the period at the end the 
     following: ``, modified in accordance with section 3''.
       (3) Add at the end the following new section:

     SEC. 3. MODIFICATION TO TEXT OF BILL ENACTED BY REFERENCE AND 
                   MODIFICATION OF A REFERENCE.

       The modification referred to in sections 1 and 2 is to the 
     text of the bill H.R. 5538, as referred to in section 1(1), 
     and is as follows: The text of such bill is modified by 
     striking all after the enacting clause and inserting the 
     following:

     ``SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       ``This Act may be cited as the `Minimum Wage Act of 2000'.

     ``SEC. 2. MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE.

       ``Paragraph (1) of section 6(a) of the Fair Labor Standards 
     Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206(a)) is amended to read as follows:
       `` `(1) except as otherwise provided in this section. Not 
     less than $5.15 an hour during the period ending December 31, 
     2000, not less than $5.65 an hour during the year beginning 
     January 1, 2001, and not less than $6.15 an hour beginning 
     January 1, 2002;'.''.

     SEC. 2. CHANGE OF BILL NUMBER REFERRED TO IN CONFERENCE 
                   REPORT.

       In the enrollment of the bill referred to in the first 
     section of this resolution, the Clerk shall make the 
     following correction: in section 1(3), strike ``H.R. 5543, as 
     introduced on October 25, 2000'' and insert ``H.R. 5601, as 
     introduced on October 30, 2000''.

  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thomas) for a point he wants to make.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me this 
time.
  I just want to remind all my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle

[[Page H11553]]

that if they do want to support this legislation, they must understand 
that with the $20-plus billion they are putting in both for graduate 
medical education, for hospitals, and for the other payment increases, 
that it in fact increases the Medicare+Choice amount as well.
  For all of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have been 
indicating they do not want money to go to the Medicare+Choice 
programs, I just do believe as a matter of honesty that they need to 
know that if they support the language in their bill, the 
Medicare+Choice payments will go up significantly, perhaps as much as 
$10 billion to $15 billion.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume to urge adoption of the rule and remind my colleagues that this 
is a vote on the minimum wage. It is a vote on the previous question 
and then the vote on the rule, but they are votes on the minimum wage.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, today, Representative Dingell and I 
introduced a bill, H.R. 5601, to improve greatly the Medicare and 
Medicaid bill currently pending before the House and Senate.
  The following outline describes how we would have significantly 
improved the nation's health care programs.
  We saw an opportunity this morning to offer this bill as an amendment 
to other legislation today, so it was assembled quickly, and I 
apologize for any technical errors or oversights. Basically, the bill 
takes the Republican-passed Medicare and Medicaid give-backs bill, 
cleans up some problems in their coverage and appeals area, and adds in 
the various items included in the Administration's letter explaining 
how the bill should be changed to avoid a veto (the Shalala-Lew 
letter).
  Mr. Speaker, Democrats will keep trying to improve the Republican 
Medicare and Medicaid bill. We ask that the majority stop the 
stonewalling and negotiate with us so that we can mutually deliver a 
comprehensive improvement in these key social programs.

 Defeat the Previous Question: Allow Democrats to Offer the Following 
                               Amendment


democrats take republican-passed medicare/medicaid give-backs bill and 
                        make major improvements

       The alternative includes all the provisions which passed 
     the House Thursday in HR 2614, and makes the following 
     changes and additions:
       Full hospital Prospective Payment System update for two 
     years; The Republican bill had only a one year update, and 
     cuts in the next two years. Hospitals reeling from BBA cuts 
     need two years of full inflation adjustment.
       Graduate Medical Education Payments, 2 year freeze at the 
     6.5 percent, compared to Republican-passed one year freeze, 
     and a cut in the second year. Provides help to nation's 
     premier teaching and research hospitals.
       Rural Disproportionate Share Hospitals: in addition to the 
     provisions in the Republican-passed bill, provides for a 
     higher level of reimbursement for rural hospitals serving low 
     income individuals.
       Nursing Home staffing and quality: includes bipartisan 
     proposals to provide an additional $1 billion/5 years to 
     assist nursing homes on improving staffing. Recent studies 
     show that many homes need to make major improvements in 
     staffing levels.
       Home health agencies: provides a 2 year delay in the 15 
     percent cut in payments instead of the Republicans 1-year 
     delay.
       Rural home health agencies, provide a 10 percent bonus for 
     service in rural areas to compensate for the high cost of 
     travel, lower volume of patients seen per hour.
       Hospice, full two year update, in lieu of the Republicans 
     one-year update. Hospices need increased payments to deal 
     with soaring cost of pharmaceuticals.
       Puerto Rico Hospitals, improved payments. The Democratic 
     bill includes the Ways and Means Health Subcommittee and 
     Senate Finance Committee proposal to increase Puerto Rican 
     hospital payments, which was dropped in the Republican-only 
     negotiations.
       Medicare+Choice program: Retains the payment improvements 
     in the Republican-passed bill, but provides increases only if 
     the plan commits to stay in a community with a defined 
     package of benefits for a three year period.
       Medicare Coverage for Individuals with ALS (Lou Gherig's 
     disease): Waives 24-month waiting period for individuals 
     diagnosed with ALS so that they can become eligible for 
     coverage under Medicare immediately. Because of the speed 
     with which ALS progresses, these individuals would likely 
     otherwise be dead before ever getting Medicare coverage. 
     Capps bill cosponsored by 282 House Members.
       Medicare Appeals provision: makes the provision in the 
     Republican-passed bill workable and similar to the Patient 
     Bill of Rights protections for Medicare beneficiaries.
       Needlestick safety for workers in public hospitals.
       Hospital-based SNF and Home Health Agency geographic 
     reclassification (provision from Commerce Committee-reported 
     bill.


 medicaid and CHIP provisions--from commerce-passed bipartisan package

       Medicaid Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) Increased 
     Payments: Freeze Medicaid DSH cuts at 2000 levels. Annual 
     update of DSH allotment for inflation beginning in 2001 and 
     thereafter, and eliminates the ``cliff'' in FY 2003 
     allotments that was in the Republican bill.
       Optional Coverage of Legal Immigrant Children and Pregnant 
     Women in Medicaid and CHIP: States may extend coverage to 
     legal immigrant children and pregnant women who have lawfully 
     resided in the U.S. for 2 years. Sponsors of immigrants would 
     not incur a debt for cost of Medicaid benefits provided and 
     not asked to repay the value of medical care after the 2-year 
     period had been met.
       Improved/Expanded Outreach Sites for enrollment in Medicaid 
     and CHIP: State option to allow additional entities to 
     determine children ``presumptively eligible'' for health 
     insurance in Medicaid or CHIP.
       Improving Welfare to Work Transition: Extends Transitional 
     Medicaid Assistance (TMA) program for one additional year. 
     (This program provides Medicaid health insurance for up to 
     one year for families [up to 185 percent of poverty] who are 
     transitioning from welfare to work.) Gives states the option 
     to simplify requirements for reporting eligibility. Gives 
     states that already cover individuals up to 185 percent the 
     option to be exempt from TMA requirement.
       Improved Outreach/Enrollment in Cost-Sharing Assistance 
     Programs for Low-Income Medicare Beneficiaries: Secretary of 
     HHS to consult with states, beneficiary groups to develop a 
     simplified application form for applying for Qualified 
     Medicare Beneficiary (QMB) and Specified Low-Income Medicare 
     Beneficiary (SLMB) programs. Secretary would make form 
     available in all Social Security offices, as well as other 
     sites frequented by seniors within one year of enactment.
       Health Insurance for Disabled Children: Democrats include 
     the Family Opportunity Act which allows working families with 
     incomes above the Social Security limit to buy-in to Medicaid 
     coverage.
       Medicaid recognition of physician assistant (PA) services.

  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 2485, an act to 
develop a regional heritage center for the St. Croix Island 
International Historic Site in Calais, Maine.
  As we prepare to celebrate the bicentennial of the historic Lewis and 
Clark expedition opening up the West, it is also important to note that 
the 400th anniversary of the first European settlements established in 
North America--including the St. Croix Island settlement established 
396 years ago.
  This site--the St. Croix Island--is a strikingly beautiful site in 
the St. Croix River, the river which forms the border between the 
United States and Canada. As such, it is a jointly operated site by the 
United States and Canada--the only internationally operated historic 
site in the entire park system.
  I have been to the areas in each of the last 5 years and have found 
it to be a fascinating area to explore and learn about its rich 
history.
  With the approaching anniversary, it is important to move now to get 
the infrastructure in place to facilitate those who will come to the 
area in the years ahead.
  I am pleased to see the bill providing for the construction of a 
heritage center at Calais, Maine as part of this infrastructure. Calais 
is a delightful town in wonderful Washington County and is close to the 
island while being a crossroads for international traffic and tourism. 
It will enhance and increase tourist interest in this important 
historic site. I have become well acquainted with the people of Calais 
over the last several summers and have found them to be friendly and 
helpful to those visiting the area. They will be a great host for the 
center.
  I commend Representative John Baldacci for his leadership in getting 
this matter brought to the floor for our action today. He is a great 
ambassador for his district and, as our legislative action on this 
matter represents, a very effective representative of the region in 
Congress.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Democratic 
amendment to be offered by Mr. Moakley if the vote on the previous 
question is defeated. This amendment would make vast improvements over 
the legislation offered by the Republican leadership.
  In my home state of Michigan and in every other state across the 
country, Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries and providers are looking 
to Congress to address the program cuts enacted in 1997. The Republican 
leadership offered a bill last week that was woefully inadequate--it 
omitted key beneficiary protections, shortchanged providers, and dumped 
billions of dollars to HMOs without requiring any accountability.
  The Democratic alternative includes the good provisions of the 
Republican bill, but makes up the difference where the Republican bill 
fell short. The Democratic amendment includes program improvements for 
seniors, the disabled, working families, pregnant women, and children. 
The bill improves outreach and enrollment for low-income seniors in 
cost-sharing assistance programs; allows families to

[[Page H11554]]

keep health insurance coverage as the transition from welfare to work; 
allows states the option to provide health insurance coverage to legal 
immigrant children and pregnant women; and provides working families 
the opportunity to buy-in to Medicaid coverage for their disabled 
child.
  The Democratic amendment also includes additional assistance to 
providers who are still reeling from the cuts they took in the 1997 
Balanced Budget Act--providers like home health agencies, nursing 
homes, and hospitals that serve a disproportionate share of the low-
income and uninsured.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this 
amendment. Our providers and beneficiaries back home are counting on 
it.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, 
and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on ordering the 
previous question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to a minimum 
of 5 minutes the period of time within which a vote by electronic 
device, if ordered, will be taken on the question of agreeing to the 
resolution.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 189, 
nays 169, not voting 74, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 582]

                               YEAS--189

     Aderholt
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cox
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kelly
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McKeon
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--169

     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Filner
     Ford
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hill (IN)
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Pelosi
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Stabenow
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--74

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Archer
     Barr
     Boucher
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Crane
     Crowley
     Danner
     Davis (IL)
     Delahunt
     Dickey
     Everett
     Fattah
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Hilliard
     Hulshof
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     King (NY)
     Klink
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Lazio
     Lipinski
     Maloney (NY)
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCollum
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Neal
     Ose
     Oxley
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pickett
     Radanovich
     Riley
     Sawyer
     Scarborough
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Talent
     Taylor (NC)
     Watkins
     Weldon (FL)
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wise
     Wolf

                              {time}  1356

  Mr. OWENS, Mr. FARR of California, and Ms. BERKLEY changed their vote 
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. SALMON changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 582, I was unable to vote. 
Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
  Stated against:
  Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 582, 
I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``nay.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 348, 
noes 0, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 83, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 583]

                               AYES--348

     Aderholt
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon

[[Page H11555]]


     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stabenow
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Paul
       

                             NOT VOTING--83

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Archer
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barton
     Bishop
     Boucher
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (IL)
     Delahunt
     Dickey
     Everett
     Fattah
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gilman
     Green (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Hilliard
     Hulshof
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     King (NY)
     Klink
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Lazio
     Lipinski
     Maloney (NY)
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCollum
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Neal
     Ose
     Oxley
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pickett
     Price (NC)
     Radanovich
     Rangel
     Riley
     Sawyer
     Scarborough
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Talent
     Taylor (NC)
     Waters
     Watkins
     Weldon (FL)
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wise

                              {time}  1404

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 583, 
I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``aye.''
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 583, I was not unable to 
vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Pursuant to House Resolution 
663, House Concurrent Resolution 439 is hereby adopted.
  The text of House Concurrent Resolution 439 is as follows:

       ``Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
     concurring), That, in the enrollment of 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 of the House of 
     Representatives shall make the following corrections:
       ``(1) In section 1, insert before `are hereby enacted into 
     law' the following: `, as modified in accordance with section 
     3,'.
       ``(2) In section 2, insert before the period at the end the 
     following: `, modified in accordance with section 3'.
       ``(3) Add at the end the following new section:

     `` `SEC. 3. MODIFICATION TO TEXT OF BILL ENACTED BY 
                   REFERENCE.

       `` `The modification referred to in sections 1 and 2 is to 
     the text of the bill H.R. 5538, as referred to in section 
     1(1), and is as follows: the quoted matter in the amendment 
     proposed to be made by section 2 of such bill is modified by 
     striking ``June 30, 2000'' and inserting ``December 31, 
     2000''.' ''.

                          ____________________