[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.''
____________________