[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 147 (Thursday, November 14, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H8757-H8764]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENTS TO H.R. 5063, ARMED 
                    FORCES TAX FAIRNESS ACT OF 2002

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 609 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 609

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 
     5063) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a 
     special rule for members of the uniformed services in 
     determining the exclusion of gain from the sale of a 
     principal residence and to restore the tax exempt status of 
     death gratuity payments to members of the uniformed services, 
     with the Senate amendments thereto, and to consider in the 
     House, without intervention of any point of order, a single 
     motion offered by the chairman of the Committee on Ways and 
     Means or his designee that the House concur in each of the 
     Senate amendments with the respective amendment printed in 
     the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. The Senate amendments and the motion shall be 
     considered as read. The motion shall be debatable for one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the committee on Ways and Means. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     motion to final adoption without intervening motion or demand 
     for division of the question.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gutknecht). The gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Linder) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I might consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 609 provides us the opportunity to take 
H.R. 5063, with the Senate amendments, and to consider without 
intervention of any point of order a motion offered by the chairman of 
the Committee on Ways and Means or his designee. The motion provides 
the opportunity for the House to concur in each of the Senate 
amendments with the amendment that has been printed in the Committee on 
Rules report accompanying this resolution. The rule also waives all 
points of order against consideration of the motion to concur in the 
Senate amendments with amendments, and it provides 1 hour of debate in 
the House equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 609 provides that the previous question 
shall be considered as ordered on the motion to final adoption without 
intervening motion or demand for division of the question.
  Mr. Speaker, as we prepare to complete the work of the 107th Congress 
and take H.R. 5063 from the Speaker's table, there are a couple of 
items of importance that will be inserted in this vehicle that the 
House will now have the opportunity to support following the adoption 
of this rule.
  First, the amendments provide for a full extension through March 31, 
2003, of current funding and program rules in the Temporary Assistance 
for Needy Families program and the Child Care, Abstinence Education, 
and Transitional Medical Assistance programs.
  In 1996, the creation of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 
program fixed block grants for State designated programs of time-
limited and work-conditioned aid to families with children. It also 
created a mandatory block grant to States for child care for low-income 
families, funded through fiscal year 2002. While the first continuing 
resolution passed by the House in September extended these programs 
through December 31, 2002, the CR passed by the House this week further 
extended those programs through the date of January 11, 2003. 
Unfortunately, in terms of the feasibility of approving funding for 
these programs through January 11 of next year, it makes much more 
programmatic sense for us to provide funds to the States on a quarterly 
basis and therefore extend the funding and program rules through an 
entire quarter to March 31, 2003.
  Second, the amendment extends federally funded temporary unemployment 
benefits of current recipients and those in high unemployment States 
through January of 2003. In brief, this amendment will extend 
unemployment benefits for up to an additional 5 weeks per individual by 
moving the cutoff date to February 1, 2003. I believe that the House 
and Senate will eagerly support this provision that provides 
supplementary weeks of employment benefits to over 800,000 persons 
across the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the rule and the subsequent motion to 
be offered by the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Linder) for yielding me the customary half hour, and I yield myself 
such time as I may consume.
  (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I had hoped to come to the well today to 
congratulate my colleagues for crafting a measure in the nick of time 
that addressed the real need in the communities. But like the vast 
majority of the legislation emerging from the 107th Congress, this is a 
pitiful stopgap measure that in the end will benefit far fewer than the 
rhetoric from the other side of the aisle suggests. I wish the 
unemployed had the lobbying might of the credit card companies who are 
enjoying the consideration of a last minute bankruptcy bill that will 
hammer our most vulnerable constituents, or even the insurance 
companies at the moment being blessed with a last minute measure to 
absolve them of liability in the event of future attacks, but the 
unemployed do not have the attention of the majority party and we do 
not believe they ever will.
  The measure before us today is woefully inadequate when it comes to 
addressing the needs of our Nation's unemployed workers. I would note 
that these are newly unemployed workers, those that have paid into the 
system in the event of an economic slowdown. Mr. Speaker, the economy 
has not hit a soft patch. It is in a recession. Moreover, the money 
these workers paid into the system is there. They are workers who paid 
into the system when times were good and are now in need when the 
economy is rough. Why put obstacles in front of working families that 
need this aid? Indeed, most of our constituents will not qualify for an 
additional 13 weeks of benefits in this bill.

[[Page H8758]]

                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are advised to turn off their cell 
phones.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. In my district close to 60,000 people remain 
unemployed due to a slowing economy. This measure will do little or 
nothing to alleviate the suffering of these families, and these 
statistics do not include the news this week that Eastman Kodak will 
cut 650 more jobs in my district or that Frontier Telephone will cut an 
additional 100 from its ranks almost immediately, before Thanksgiving 
Day.
  In New York since the enactment of temporary Federal legislation in 
March of this year, the unemployed workers have been able to qualify 
for federally funded benefits which in New York can last up to 13 
weeks, but this program is proving wildly inadequate for New York. 
Exceptionally large numbers of workers are running out of Federal 
benefits before they find new employment. The severity of the 
exhaustion problem reflects the State's shaky labor market, and I wish 
I could say that New York was alone, but my colleagues know better. The 
measure before us not only fails to make necessary improvements to the 
program, it fails even to extend the program in its current form. In 
the vast majority of States, it would provide no additional weeks of 
federally funded unemployment benefits to the workers who have already 
exhausted their regular, State unemployment benefits and cannot find 
work.
  Under this proposal large groups of unemployed workers who will need 
additional weeks of unemployment benefits before job growth picks up 
would go without any further assistance. Between now and the end of 
January, an estimated 1.8 million jobless workers in need of assistance 
would fail to receive it under the majority plan.
  This body could do much better. My colleague from New York (Mr. 
Rangel) introduced legislation H.R. 5491 that would extend temporary 
Federal unemployment assistance for an additional 6 months through June 
30, 2003. This measure would ensure that workers in every State are 
eligible for 26 weeks of extended unemployment benefits, and in States 
with high unemployment, like New York, workers would receive an 
additional 7 weeks of benefits. But it goes without saying that the 
measure before us today cannot be amended, and any meaningful 
consideration of the measure of the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Rangel) would be shut out under this rule.
  I need to clarify another point for my colleagues. The House action 
report today indicates that Texas, New York, and California would be 
deemed ``high unemployment States'' under the chairman's bill, but 
according to the minority Committee on Ways and Means staff, that is 
not correct. The bill contains no expansion of the definition to allow 
States other than three, Alaska Washington, and Oregon, to qualify.
  The problem with the current formulation which is fixed in the bill 
of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) is that classification as a 
high unemployment State is based on the insured unemployment rate, 
which does not include long-term unemployment.

                              {time}  1730

  Thus, workers who receive the 13-week extension provided for in last 
year's tax bill, over and above the initial 26 weeks, are dropped from 
the calculation. So the formula is not a true measure of the 
unemployment situation in a State. States with long-term unemployment 
that exhausted their benefits are simply out of luck.
  Another provision of this measure represents a case of too little too 
late. The Medicare/Medicaid reimbursement provision purports to 
temporarily address the controversy surrounding physician payments, but 
our Nation's hospitals are left out of the fix. Again, many of my 
colleagues I suspect are hearing from hospitals about their critical 
needs, and this measure will not alleviate their struggles.
  Mr. Speaker, if the previous question is defeated, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule. Unlike the language in the bill which 
indemnifies the administration if it chooses to adjust Medicare 
physician payments, my amendment both protects beneficiaries from the 
harmful effects of physicians dropping out of the program and 
guarantees a payment increase for physicians.
  Other Medicare providers, including hospitals, home health agencies 
and nursing homes that provide essential services to seniors and the 
disabled would be helped. The amendment ensures that all these 
providers have the resources needed to continue caring for their 
beneficiaries. This is about a bipartisan initiative which includes the 
House Republican provider package from earlier this year.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question so we can 
offer this important amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).
  (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that with the overwhelming 
Republican victory in the House and Senate and a Republican President, 
that this would be an ideal time to see whether or not we can at least 
ease the need for the partisanship we had had in the past and to see 
whether or not we could get some basic things done for the country and 
plan better for the future of how we are going to work in the Congress.
  I guess the major thing that we have to do is just talk with each 
other and maybe not go through the process of having hearings and going 
to the committees and all of that formality, but at least to be able to 
alert people as to how you would like to close out this Congress.
  So we are adding to the Military Tax Fairness Act, that no one could 
be against except communists, some pretty good measures. One is to give 
some relief to our stopgap extension for the funding of welfare. It is 
small. We do not know where we are going or what we are going to do, 
but there is no sense letting the poor folks suffer for our confusion, 
so moving on that at a later date makes a lot of sense since you could 
not complete it this year.
  The unemployment benefit extension to me only gives relief to three 
States, Oregon, Washington and Arkansas, and does not come anywhere 
near acting as though we are addressing the ever-increasing 
unemployment, especially in my State; and I wish we would have done 
something with that.
  I guess the major hurdle that we have to overcome, and one of the 
reasons why I am opposing the rule, is because no one has explained the 
creativity of how we are going to give assistance to Medicare 
physicians. I assume that Republicans on the Committee on Rules already 
know what this means; and just maybe, just maybe, they might explain 
how we can pay Medicare doctors and forget all of the other providers.
  Now, it was explained to me that we do not have the money to pay 
anybody else and that the administration would pay the Medicare 
doctors, and if they did pay the Medicare doctors, that this would say 
that the administration cannot be sued. Now, I know some smart people 
are trying to figure this out.
  First of all, I do not know who is going to sue the administration; 
but if you are giving them some type of amnesty for paying the Medicare 
doctors, then the same legal creative mind that is going to spare the 
administration for doing the right thing for paying the doctors should 
have them do the right thing to pay for Medicare, and we will not sue 
them; to pay for the nursing homes, and we will not sue them; to pay 
for the teaching hospitals, and we will not sue them.
  So I do not know where we are going with this. But I would hate in 
the last few hours of this Congress to end up providing a fig leaf for 
the administration, when we know they are not thinking about doing 
anything illegal. So if they can do this without the Congress, let them 
do it and take care of the needs of the other people, because our 
hospitals are suffering; and I just do not know why we are rifle-
shooting the Medicare physicians and just ignoring the health 
maintenance organizations and their needs.
  So I expect as soon as I sit down that someone might explain this to 
me, and maybe, just maybe, we might be able on the previous question to 
change these things so we can leave together,

[[Page H8759]]

not as Democrats and Republicans, but as a Congress who could not 
complete their work on time and is just trying to get something done 
that we are proud of when we go home.
  But I think the best way to do this is to defeat the rule and to come 
back with something that I really think would make us feel a little 
more proud of who we are.
  I thank the gentlewoman for this opportunity; and I look forward to 
hearing from the majority, especially now that the chairman of the 
committee, he has not spoken to me since we have been back, but I would 
like to take this opportunity to congratulate him and hope we can set a 
new tone here, and I think just by explaining why we are not suing the 
administration for just singling out Medicare physicians, when we ought 
to sue if they ignore the rest of the people that deserve some type of 
assistance.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York said he wished 
somebody could explain it to him. I think somebody will.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Thomas).
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  First of all, I want to thank my friend. This is, as we sometimes 
have to do at the end of a session, dealing with some mistakes that 
were made, both intentionally and unintentionally.
  As far as the tenor for the welfare renewal, in the continuing 
resolution the language that was assumed to have fixed the problem 
provided by the appropriators does not, and what we are doing is making 
sure that the program at least extends through March.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. THOMAS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I have no problem with that.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, on the unemployment, as 
the gentleman well knows, there is a cliff that is going to occur 
because of the expiration of the unemployment provisions on December 
28. We have had debates about how long it should be and in what form it 
should be. This at least provides those who are getting the 
unemployment, who are expecting their 13 weeks, to be able to get the 
13 weeks.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, he did 
not go nearly far enough, but I could hardly vote against it. The 
interesting part is going to be this part.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, there is no guarantee 
that the administration will do anything. The difficulty in trying to 
move at this time those kinds of things that we call provider packages 
is that what is an appropriate provider package is in the eye of the 
beholder; and in trying to negotiate what it is that we are going to 
do, it is simply an impossibility.
  What we are aware of is that in one particular approach, which is the 
physician reimbursement structure, plugged numbers were put in for 1998 
and 1999. They do not accurately reflect the number of cases that 
physicians were involved with.
  It is possible that the administration would change those numbers. 
There is no guarantee that they would change the numbers, but they are 
concerned that if they did go in and put actual numbers in place of 
plugged numbers, someone may entertain a suit to go back into the 1990s 
or the 1980s and say this number was not an actual number, and we want 
to sue you to make that change.
  So all this provision does is provide legal protection, that if the 
administration does decide to make an adjustment, that is, use real-
world numbers now known rather than the plugged numbers, they would not 
be subject to lawsuits if they did not make additional changes.
  Now, that means that all we are doing is creating an opportunity for 
the administration to make a decision if they so choose to do so. That 
does not mean that this in any way adequately addresses the needs of 
many other providers. But there is no other provider group that the 
administration could make adjustments from plugged numbers to real 
numbers, as in this particular case. It requires the investment of 
money to be addressed to those various groups, be they hospitals, 
skilled nursing facilities, home health care or others.
  This is not about providing money to fix one group's problem versus 
another; it is to create an atmosphere in which, if the administration 
chooses to do so, they would be able to do so, and the cost would then 
be borne by the administration, not by the legislative branch. When we 
come back then at the beginning of the next Congress, we would address, 
as we normally do, those provider groups for which we would have to 
provide the finances to assist them.
  So all this does is put in place a legal protection, so that if the 
administration does choose to adjust those numbers, they would not be 
required through any kind of a court case to adjust any other number.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield further, I do 
not doubt the good intent that the gentleman has in providing some 
moneyless way, some way that we do not have any financial obligation to 
pay for it, to give relief to the Medicare physicians. But I might 
suggest that you are opening up Pandora's box with hospitals, nursing 
homes, Medicaid. I do not know why you would just go to this, just 
because we have not been able to address the problems of the people 
that are waiting for help. All of these hospitals are calling Members 
all over wondering for what reason are we singling out Medicare 
physicians for what they might call special treatment. If Members are 
so sophisticated that they are going to say this is an entitlement that 
is completely in the hands of the administration and it is just a 
question of which numbers they are going to use, but we are now going 
to hold them harmless in case they make a mistake, then I really do not 
think that this is the way that we should go.
  I had hoped, and I do hope, that this is the end of the type of 
procedure that we have that the minority finds out what you are up to 
when the bill comes out. But maybe we can conclude by taking this off 
the calendar, seeing what can be worked out and start getting ready to 
start the new Congress on a different footing. I think some of these 
things could be adjusted. But it seems like this is a monkey wrench in 
the whole darn thing.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, it sounds to me the 
gentleman is offering the classic argument of because it is not 
perfect, it should be opposed. It seems to me that if there is an 
ability to correct a mistake and that the administration simply wants 
legal protection to correct that mistake, that we ought to be able to 
do that.
  If the gentleman says others are not being provided for adequately, I 
would be the first to agree with the gentleman; and that is the first 
order of business. But no one else can be taken care of unless we go 
through those weeks and months of negotiations of what a package should 
look like.
  So I would simply say, in returning my time to the gentleman who was 
kind enough to yield it to me, if in fact using real-world numbers and 
providing the administration some legal protection from being sued 
because they did not do something else other than putting in real-world 
numbers is going to be something that someone opposes, it is amazing 
the point that we have come to.
  If others could be resolved this way, we would be doing others. Just 
because this particular problem could be resolved and others cannot 
does not mean that one should be in opposition to resolving this 
particular problem. We will deal with the others when it is timely and 
appropriate, because we will have to negotiate and put dollars on the 
table to solve other providers' problems. This is one in which the 
administration is merely asking for legal protection, and I think we 
ought to provide it.

                              {time}  1745

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. I would urge a ``no'' 
vote on the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill was brought before the Committee on Rules in 
the

[[Page H8760]]

dead of night without any committee consideration. I am on the 
Committee on Rules, and we in the minority did not have a chance to 
review the legislative language even before we reported this rule. In 
fact, there was nobody present in the Committee on Rules last night 
that could answer any questions about the substance of this bill and, 
for that matter, the other bills that were brought before our 
committee. I think that on process alone this bill should be defeated.
  Now, the majority claims that this bill will prevent people from 
losing their welfare benefits, from losing their unemployment 
compensation, and will allow the administration to fix the 
reimbursement problem. That is a tall tale if I have ever heard one.
  The extension of the unemployment compensation is minimal. Because of 
the weak language in the bill, the House will have to address these 
issues again in January. I suppose one could make the argument that 
this is better than nothing, but not much more than that.
  The so-called physicians' reimbursement fix is not a solution. There 
are problems with Medicare that began with the implementation of the 
BBA-mandated cuts on October 1, 2002. The majority may claim that this 
bill allows the majority to fix the physicians' reimbursement 
deduction, but it does not directly fix it. Nor does it address the cut 
in reimbursements for home health agencies, nursing homes, hospitals, 
and individual medical services.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a last ditch attempt of the majority to pretend 
like they are doing something for the American people but, quite 
frankly, the American people deserve much more than this.
  Now, at the conclusion of debate on this rule, the minority will call 
for a vote on the previous question. If the previous question is 
defeated, we will offer an amendment that will include real relief from 
the BBA-mandated cuts.
  This House should not adjourn without providing real Medicare relief, 
but this bill does not provide that relief.
  So I would strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous 
question, defeat the rule, and support real Medicare relief that will 
benefit all of our seniors.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I want to remind my 
colleagues in the House that actually we passed a payer package to 
address the problems in the home health industry, the nursing home 
industry, the hospital industry, and the physician industry. We not 
only passed provider reforms, but we passed reforms that would be 
effective for 3 years so there would be stability in the medical 
community and our providers would be able to meet the challenges of 
this current period of difficulty with greater certainty. As to 
Medicare reimbursements in a period when malpractice insurance is 
rising by leaps and bounds, in a period when nursing costs are rising, 
when drug costs are rising, when blood costs are rising, it is really 
important for us to at least guarantee to our providers payment 
stability, as we did in the provider package that passed this House 
before the July recess and must do again before many months pass.
  It is unfortunate that the other body has been unable to agree on a 
provider package and is still unable to negotiate on that package. If 
that were not the case, we would have a package before us here today.
  As that is the case, it is extraordinarily important that we pass 
this clarifying language that merely clarifies current law, protecting 
against administrative review to the fiscal year calendar charges as 
well. So this is just a clarification of current law, and we believe 
that if that is done, the administration will be able to make 
adjustments as they have in many, many other instances. The fundamental 
problem is the underestimate of the number of Medicare patients that 
were going to move to the Medicare+Choice plans. Since not as many 
moved as were anticipated, those patients continue to see physicians. 
But we stopped paying the physicians for those patients.
  So this is a very simple matter. It gives the administration just the 
opportunity to evaluate their own formulas and make similar kinds of 
reviews of them. It does not guarantee anything; it just assures that 
the current language that has worked in many situations in the past 
will have the opportunity to work at this time. And, of course, as my 
colleagues well know, physicians are declining to take additional 
Medicare patients; they are declining to even convert patients. And if, 
in fact, physicians do begin to participate, either fewer physicians or 
the current physicians at a lower level of participation, it will 
affect access to hospitals for our senior citizens and access to office 
care.
  So it is a very important matter for our big medical centers as well 
as for our smaller hospitals and for our physicians; in other words, 
for seniors' access to health care, that we pass this bill this 
evening. And in addition, of course, it does extend unemployment 
compensation benefits after December 31, and that alone should be cause 
for the support of my colleagues. It also makes a more rational 
extension of TANF and therefore will allow the States to go forward and 
get their quarterly allocation to maintain a consistent program over 
the next quarter.
  Again, this House passed a TANF reform bill many, many months ago, 
and if the other body had acted, we would not be in the situation we 
are in this evening. I urge support of this limited but important 
legislation.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Tanner).
  (Mr. TANNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 5063 with regard to 
unemployment extension and the TANF measures, and I agree that we need 
to address the problem facing our Nation's physicians. But there are 
other health care providers who are in just as dire straits, hospitals, 
home health, nursing homes and others.
  We have in Tennessee, particularly in the rural areas now, hospitals 
operating in the red, laying off nurses; we have elderly citizens that 
cannot get home health care services. What we are trying to do when 
asking for Members to vote against the previous question is to allow us 
to bring up a bill, H.R. 5729, that includes the package of provider 
reimbursements or provider help that the Republicans passed in H.R. 
4954 earlier this year and is within the budget. This seems to me to be 
imminently reasonable and fair to all of the providers across the 
board. It recognizes that we have a serious problem in the country.
  Should we be able to defeat the previous question, we would then be 
able to insert into this procedure the House-passed bill, H.R. 4954, 
with the provider package for all health care providers.
  I would urge as we debate this that we do that and point out that we 
in no way are trying to jeopardize the passage of the provisions with 
regard to unemployment and TANF that are in here and that are 
necessary, nor the physicians, but to recognize that people other than 
physicians in the health care delivery industry in this country are in 
just as dire straits, and it seems to me to be an imminently reasonable 
thing for us to do.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TANNER. I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, if we followed the course 
of action that the gentleman is suggesting, and no one would like to do 
that more than I; I think we have to address all of these issues; that 
is what we did in the payer package and that is what we have to do in 
the beginning of January. But if we follow the course of action the 
gentleman is suggesting, the Senate simply will not go along and then 
we will leave this place with nothing done.
  The physicians uniquely suffered a 5 percent cut last year, and if 
there is anything we can do to enable the administration to follow 
ordinary administrative procedures to prevent an additional cut, we 
should do it. We do not know this will work, but we do know, because we 
have been trying, that the Senate will not agree to a package and we 
have not been able to negotiate that package.
  So if we follow the gentleman's proposal that we come back with his 
package to recommit, they will just not accept it, and we will be 
nowhere. That is

[[Page H8761]]

what has happened ever since July. Since July, we are nowhere, even 
though we did our part. We passed a payer package. If they had sent 
anything over, if they had sent the merest dribble over, we would be 
able to negotiate a package. I am sorry to have taken the gentleman's 
time.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske).
  Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Speaker, in Iowa, the pediatricians, the 
obstetricians, the family practitioners rank 47th, 48th and 50th in 
terms of reimbursement for Medicare. With the cuts in physician 
payments, many of them are making decisions not to accept any new 
Medicare patients, and many are actually making decisions to drop out 
of Medicare.
  This comes about because there was a faulty formula for a couple of 
years, and what we are dealing with now is the opportunity to at least 
allow the administration to look at this. This does not mean that other 
providers will not be taken care of in a package. But we tried to put 
together a balanced package earlier in the year when we were dealing 
with prescription drugs, and we just did not get it done in the other 
body in order to go to a conference to work it out.
  Just because we cannot do everything, as has already been stated, 
does not mean we should not do something or at least allow the 
administration the opportunity to do that. This is not unique to Iowa. 
We are seeing this in many, many other places around the country. This 
is a result of a flawed formula, and it would be my plea to my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to allow this minimal provision 
to simply prevent a lawsuit from occurring from a disaffected other 
provider group.
  I would make an argument that if the administration would do 
something on this, that it would actually be to the benefit of the 
other provider groups early next year, because it actually removes one 
of the players from the table and, I think, then increases the bounty 
on that table for the other providers. This is a rather unique 
situation and I would ask my colleagues to support the rule and also 
the bill.
  Finally, since this will be the last time I speak on this floor, I 
just want to thank my colleagues from both sides of the aisle. I have 
made a lot of friendships here in the House and I will treasure them 
forever.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear that I 
support the bill before us today, but I urge opposition to the previous 
question for the reasons of which the gentleman from Tennessee 
amplified on a moment ago.
  The frustration that many of us have felt over the last 6 months, as 
the gentlewoman spoke of a moment ago about the Senate, the time is 
limited now in which this body can blame the other body for not acting. 
Unfortunately, the bill before us is not going to get acted on either 
and yet we are going to set up one last time in which we are going to 
have the blame game in which we can point to somebody else for us not 
doing our work.
  If the previous question is voted down, then we can take care of 
nursing homes, hospitals, home health care, and other health care 
providers exactly like the majority side said we should do it that was 
included within the budget this year. Nothing changes regarding what 
was passed in the House if we vote down the previous question.

                              {time}  1800

  All of the good things in this bill, all of the other things are in. 
It has just as good a chance of passing as the simplified, watered-down 
bill we have tonight.
  It is unfortunate we have gotten ourselves into this position; but we 
have, for all the reasons, many of which were very successful 
politically. But that does not help the rural hospitals in my district. 
That does not help the one-third of the nursing homes in the State of 
Texas that are now in bankruptcy, and another one-fourth that are 
hanging on bankruptcy if we do not act, and act sooner, not later.
  Excuses and finger-pointing are not going to get the job done. All we 
encourage is a vote against the previous question so we can send the 
package to the Senate, to the other body, that will do exactly what the 
majority wanted to do and a lot of folks on this side of the aisle also 
wanted to get done.
  But Members should not deceive themselves that they are going to 
accomplish this with a finger-pointing exercise today. I encourage a 
vote against the previous question, allow the Tanner amendment to then 
come immediately back with everything, and then let us see whose fault 
it might be.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. McDermott).
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, it is really nice that we can end this session with one 
more act from the Republican economic follies. I mean, this is the 
craziest piece of legislation I have ever seen, and this rule is an 
amazingly stupid rule.
  They bring a bill out here for equity for the veterans, right? Oh, 
well, now we are here, let us throw a little something on for the 
doctors. While we are here, let us throw a little something on for 
unemployment.
  We had extended hearings on this issue. Our committee went over and 
over again and heard about all the problems. Like heck we did; there 
were no hearings. They come out here with Band-Aids again, and 
everybody on this floor knows this bill is going to die. This is 
nonsense. It is not going to go over to the Senate and be accepted. But 
as my dear friend, the gentleman from Texas, said, they want to play 
the blame game.
  Now, unemployment is a serious issue. What they are doing in this 
bill is not going to fix the unemployment problem. I will give chapter 
and verse when we get on the substance. But the fact that they will not 
allow us to put any kind of amendments up here is the reason why this 
bill is no good, and it is what they have been doing for a whole year.
  They have known that the doctors were being taken around the corner 
and beaten up for 5 percent. They have known that for 9 months. They 
are not smart enough to put together something with the other side to 
get it through. Now here they are at the last day and saying, well, 
Thanksgiving is coming, Christmas is coming, send them another package; 
but they are not putting any stamps on it. It is never going to get 
through this place.
  That has got to stop. These are issues that affect Democrats and 
Republicans; it is not partisan. Doctors, rural hospitals are Democrat 
and they are Republican. As long as they try and fix the problem by 
coming out here and slapping one, two, three Band-Aids on to fix what 
they should have done, it will not work.
  The unemployment bill was badly written in the first place, and we 
begged them to come and do something about it. What do they do? Extend 
it for another 5 weeks. They say, well, another 5 weeks. The long-term 
unemployment in this country is going up dramatically. We ought to vote 
this rule down and write a decent one.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that is one of the gentleman's more 
interesting bits of prose. I suppose there is a kernel of thought 
lurking in it, but I did not detect it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership has taken care of their 
colleagues in the Congress. There is going to be a tidy COLA made 
available to Members of Congress that will far exceed 6 months' worth 
of unemployment benefits for most Americans. In this bill, all they 
could find room for was a 5-week extension.
  I have to admit, coming from the State of Oregon, with the second-
highest unemployment rate in the Nation, with 2,500 people a week 
exhausting their benefits, that that is better than nothing. Those 
families now know that through Christmas and the holidays they will not 
be totally cut off. However, it creates an incredible amount of 
uncertainty for those families come the end of January.

[[Page H8762]]

  We cannot do better than that? We can give ourselves a COLA for 12 
months that far exceeds any benefits they can ever expect under 
unemployment, but somehow we cannot give them the certainty of another 
26 weeks? I do not understand that. I really do not understand that 
position in this House. Why are we so stingy when it comes to working 
people, and so generous when it comes to insurance companies and the 
pharmaceutical industry? It might have something to do with who funds 
our campaigns.
  This provision of this bill is essential, but it is nowhere near 
enough. Congress will be immediately confronted upon returning in early 
January with the issue of further extending unemployment benefits and, 
hopefully, adopting an effective economic stimulus package.
  We simply need to put America back to work. We have a trade policy 
that is exporting jobs, and we are being told that trickle-down will 
help stimulate the economy and put people back to work; but my people 
are tired of being trickled on. They need Federal investment. We need 
something that puts them back to work.
  We are holding back money from the Highway Trust Fund. That will put 
people back to work. We cannot get a bill passed to deal with the 
forest fire projects which could put people back to work in the woods. 
We do not have time for that, but we do have time for some other 
special shenanigans around here.
  Mr. Speaker, I will support the legislation; but I bemoan the fact 
that Congress sees fit to take care of itself first, its contributors 
second, and the working people of America last in a very, very, very 
cursory way that is only temporary.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Wu).
  Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, thousands and thousands of Oregonians who have worked 
hard, played by the rules, frequently gotten a good education, and 
worked hard all their lives are currently without work. Many of them 
will be losing their unemployment benefits on December 28.
  The legislation before us is hardly a perfect piece of legislation, 
but it will get a lot of folks over the hump until we can come back to 
this piece of legislation in the new congressional session. I hope that 
we will be able to do that.
  I have legislation before this Chamber, H.R. 5731, which would not 
only extend the unemployment assistance benefit program, it would also 
extend the period of time in which any individual could receive 
assistance. I think that is a very necessary step to take at this 
point.
  There are two kinds of folks, at least, who are hurting out there. I 
have seen so many of their faces as I have gone around communities in 
Oregon and in my town hall meetings. They are people who have exhausted 
their benefits, their 26 weeks' worth; and they are folks who, without 
an extension of this program, would not receive any assistance 
whatsoever. We need to help both groups, and I hope that we are able to 
come back in the new Congress and address the needs of both groups.
  However, tiding one group over through the holidays I believe is a 
necessary step. I do intend to support the legislation.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Arkansas (Mr. Berry).
  Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to 
me, and I thank her for her leadership in this matter.
  Mr. Speaker, I agree, we should fix the physician fee schedule. We 
tried to fix it. We offered a pretty good one in the bill that was 
passed in this body earlier this year.
  I can tell the Members this, this bill does not go far enough. Rural 
hospitals, nursing homes, long-term care facilities, and home health 
agencies are all in trouble in rural America. Our rural health 
infrastructure is crumbling. We suffer from a lack of nurses, doctors, 
skilled medical professionals.
  We are losing the ability to provide health care to Medicare 
recipients because the reimbursement rates are so low, not only to the 
doctors but to the hospitals and the other providers. Rural hospitals 
in my district are struggling to keep their doors open and at the same 
time provide health care to our people.
  It is time that we face this problem, deal with it in a responsible 
way, and stop playing the games that are being played like we are doing 
here tonight. We just passed a bill yesterday that reduces the amount 
of money that is spent on road construction, which does not make any 
sense at all. If there is one thing we know that helps the economy, it 
is constructing highways. It gives us not only immediate jobs, but 
long-term benefits. We are playing all these games with the American 
people.
  I hope that the people that are supporting this today have to go and 
face these people that do not have any health care 2 years from now.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, if the previous question is defeated, and we will call a 
vote on that, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule. Unlike the 
language in the bill which indemnifies the administration if it chooses 
to adjust Medicare physician payments, my amendment both protects 
beneficiaries from the harmful effects of physicians dropping out of 
the program, and guarantees a payment increase for the physicians.
  Other Medicare providers, including hospitals, home health agencies, 
and nursing homes also provide essential care to seniors and the 
disabled. The amendment ensures that all these providers have the 
resources needed to continue caring for the beneficiaries. This is a 
bipartisan initiative which includes the House Republican provider 
package from earlier this year.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that we 
can offer this important amendment, and ask unanimous consent that the 
text of the amendment be printed in the Record immediately before the 
vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gutknecht). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I will agree that this is not the best we can do, but it 
is the best we can do at this hour. I would agree that it is perhaps 
true that the other body may not take it up and pass it, just like they 
have not passed other things we have passed. This bill going over there 
unpassed will have lots of company, but it is trying to do the right 
thing. It is trying to help with unemployment, it is trying to help 
with TANF, and it is trying to help with reimbursement. It is worth our 
consideration.
  I urge this body to pass the previous question, to pass the rule, and 
I will support the underlying legislation.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, although I have many problems with 
this bill, including the limited extension of unemployment, as well as 
the lack of relief for all providers of Medicare, I rise to support the 
rule and the underlying bill because this short extension is better 
than nothing, and it is likely all we can get right now.
  I also support the bill and the rule because it addresses another 
very important issue affecting health care for countless Americans. It 
does what I have always thought was possible anyway, which is to 
clarify the authority of the Administrator of Center for Medicare and 
Medicaid Services to reverse the cuts, and hopefully revise the way 
provider payments for physicians are determined.
  This is not a perfect solution, because Congress should have reversed 
the cut once and for all, but it may also help set a precedent for 
issues such as this in the future.
  There were many measures I hoped would be passed and issues addressed 
in a lame duck session this year, and reversing the cuts in Medicare 
provider payments was one of the important ones. Health care providers 
have borne 4 cuts over the past 10 years and another cut is expected 
within two years. This Is in addition to the fact that the payment 
schedule, which barely allows doctors to keep their office open, was 
erroneously determined. This administration and CMS are forcing good 
doctors and other providers out of practice and denying quality health 
care to increasing numbers of Americans.
  We have a lot more work to do to fix this broken health care system 
in this country, but because we are leaving to go back home tonight, we 
cannot do it now.
  I hope my friends in the majority will commit themselves to doing 
more than this band aid fix when we return next year.

[[Page H8763]]

  The text of the amendment previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is 
as follows:
       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. __. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     resolution, the first amendment printed in the report of the 
     Committee on Rules shall be modified by adding the text of 
     H.R. 5729.

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for electronic voting, if 
ordered, on the question of adoption of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 207, 
nays 198, not voting 26, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 479]

                               YEAS--207

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiberi
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--198

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--26

     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Blagojevich
     Boyd
     Callahan
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Ehrlich
     Grucci
     Hooley
     Houghton
     Kleczka
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     McKinney
     Nethercutt
     Oberstar
     Roukema
     Sensenbrenner
     Stump
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Weldon (PA)

                              {time}  1841

  Messrs. OWENS, RODRIQUEZ, MEEKS of New York, JEFFERSON, and DELAHUNT 
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. NUSSLE changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). 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

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. 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 245, 
noes 137, not voting 49, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 480]

                               AYES--245

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clayton
     Clement
     Coble
     Collins
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dooley
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Matheson
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Menendez
     Mica
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Jeff
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Oxley
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Royce
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood

[[Page H8764]]


     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--137

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Honda
     Hostettler
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nussle
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--49

     Armey
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Blagojevich
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boyd
     Callahan
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Crane
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Ehrlich
     Gephardt
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Grucci
     Hansen
     Herger
     Hilliard
     Hooley
     Houghton
     Keller
     Kleczka
     Larsen (WA)
     Lipinski
     Luther
     McInnis
     McKinney
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Nadler
     Norwood
     Oberstar
     Otter
     Radanovich
     Roukema
     Ryan (WI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Simpson
     Stump
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Watson (CA)
     Weldon (PA)

                              {time}  1852

  Ms. HARMAN changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. BERKLEY changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  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:
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 480 I was inadvertently 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

                          ____________________