Congressional Record, Volume 149 Issue 91 (Thursday, June 19, 2003)

[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 91 (Thursday, June 19, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H5555-H5562]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 660, SMALL BUSINESS HEALTH FAIRNESS
ACT OF 2003

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 283 and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 283

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order without intervention of any point of order
to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 660) to amend title I
of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to
improve access and choice for entrepreneurs with small
businesses with respect to medical care for their employees.
The bill shall be considered as read for amendment. The
amendment recommended by the Committee on Education and the
Workforce now printed in the bill shall be considered as
adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto
to final passage without intervening motion except--
(1) one hour of debate on the bill, as amended, equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce;
(2) the further amendment printed in the report of the
Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, if offered
by Representative Kind of Wisconsin or his designee, which
shall be in order without intervention of any point of order,
shall be considered as read, and shall be separately
debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent; and
(3) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln
Diaz-Balart) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of
debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Frost), pending which I yield myself such time as I may
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is
for the purpose of debate only.
(Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida asked and was given permission to
revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 283
is a rule that provides for the consideration of H.R. 660, the Small
Business Health Fairness Act of 2003. The resolution makes in order a
minority party substitute that provides ample opportunity to discuss
this important legislation before us, while addressing certainly the
concerns of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
The rule provides 1 hour of general debate, evenly divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee
on Education and the Workforce.
This is a bipartisan bill. In fact, the legislation has 162
cosponsors on a bipartisan basis, and many, many groups that are
interested in this issue are supporting this legislation.
H.R. 660 was introduced by the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr.
Fletcher). It has the strong support of the Speaker, of the Committee
on Small Business chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo),
and the Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations chairman, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson).
Association Health Plans, or AHPs, allow access to needed health
insurance for many who do not have health insurance. The House, I
believe, Mr. Speaker, must act now to pass this long overdue
legislation.
Really, the Nation is at a crossroads. We currently have over 40
million Americans without health insurance, approximately 60 percent of
whom work or depend on small employers who often cannot afford these
very important and needed benefits. This bill will help small business,
in turn, help working families.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 660 will allow for small businesses across the
country to band together through established and respected trade or
professional organizations to lower health care costs. This same model
already works for large companies. We believe that small businesses
should also be allowed to benefit from it.
Estimates predict that anywhere from 350,000 to 8 million uninsured
workers will receive health care benefits through these AHPs even at
the lowest projection, and that means positive progress for many
currently uninsured men and women.
Now, we may hear all sorts of arguments concerning, for example,
state-by-state regulations. We have already, however, seen many large
companies provide health insurance because they

[[Page H5556]]

are allowed these procedures. These same benefits will now be
obtainable through collective bargaining by the AHPs while, at the same
time, reducing burdensome administration fees, precisely by having to
comply with only one set of Federal regulations and not 50 individual
sets of State regulations.
This bill also ensures that AHPs adhere to the important regulations
in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996,
meaning that coverage cannot be denied based on health or claims
experience.
I am very pleased that the Committee on Rules did a fine job in
providing a full and fair process of debate through, among other
things, permitting a Democrat substitute that addresses many of the
points brought out through testimony in the Committee on Rules.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 660 is a good bill and House Resolution 283 is a
fair rule. It is very important to the over 40 million uninsured
Americans and the vitality of small business in the United States.
Through this legislation, the House of Representatives continues its
work to relieve many of the existing burdens on American families.
I would like to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) for their leadership on this
issue, and I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I support the idea behind the association
health plans. Helping small businesses has been a priority of mine for
a long while. At the same time, I strongly believe that we have a moral
obligation to help every American get the health coverage they and
their families need.
So I am glad that the Democrats on the Committee on Education and the
Workforce, particularly the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) and the
gentleman from new Jersey (Mr. Andrews), have written the Democratic
substitute. It is a sensible and affordable plan to ensure health
coverage for small businesses and their employees that is at least as
good as Federal employees get. If you think small businesses deserve
the same health coverage that Members of Congress get, then the
Democratic plan is for you.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the Republican Party controls the House
of Representatives. That gives them the power to block important
priorities, and they have no problem using it.
For instance, they are still blocking tax relief for millions of
military and working families. Six times Democrats have tried to give
the child tax credit to these families because we believe that they
deserve at least a fraction of the tax breaks that Republicans gave to
millionaires last month. But six times, House Republicans have used
their power to deny these families. Today, Mr. Speaker, the Republican
leadership is using their power and this restrictive rule to undermine
patient protections.
Now, perhaps Republicans will say that we should not be surprised.
More than 90 percent of the rules in this Congress have been
restricted, a shameful record of stifling democracy and blocking
critical American priorities. But the rule on the floor today perfectly
illustrates how the Republican majority has operated during this
Congress.
In the Committee on Rules, Democrats offered 14 amendments on issues
that are critical to the health of the people who might participate in
these plans, but the Committee on Rules Republicans voted down all but
one of them, the Democratic substitute.
Consider patients' rights, for example. Republicans have successfully
blocked a national Patients' Bill of Rights for the past several years,
and the base bill would undermine the patient protections that various
States have passed, making it a kind of anti-Patients Bill of Rights.
So the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) and the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) went to the Committee on Rules with an
amendment to ensure that these new association health plans comply with
State patient protections, like prohibitions on doctor gag rules and
access to emergency rooms, OBGYNs, and specialists. But Republicans on
the Committee on Rules defeated their amendment on a party-line vote.
Or take prostate cancer and breast cancer. The gentlewoman from New
York (Mrs. McCarthy) tried to ensure that these new health plans cover
screenings for these deadly diseases, but Republicans refused to allow
the House to vote on her amendments.
The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) and the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Kucinich) each tried to protect Americans with autism.
The gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum) tried to ensure
maternity and well-child benefits continue to be covered in States that
require this coverage.

{time} 1030

And the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) tried to protect
small businesses and their employees from discrimination based on race,
gender or age. Each of these is an important issue when you are
creating a new system that could affect the health of millions and
millions of Americans. But Republicans refuse to allow the House to
even vote on their amendments. As a result, Mr. Speaker, if the
Republican-based bill passes the House, millions of Americans will lose
out on important patient protections, and that is just one example of
how Americans are harmed by what the Republican leadership does on the
Committee on Rules.
Of course, none of these amendments would have been necessary in the
Republican bill were they not so deficient, but it is. In fact, the
Republican plan is opposed by more than 475 organizations representing
State governors, insurance commissioners, attorneys general and State
legislators, as well as physician groups, consumer organizations,
Chambers of Commerce, farm bureaus and small business associations. The
American Nurses Association, for example, wrote that it ``would
undermine the protections provided by State laws while doing little to
provide coverage for the uninsured.''
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that premiums would
increase for 80 percent of small employers, while as many as 100,000 of
the sickest people would lose coverage altogether.
In my home State of Texas, more than 1.5 million people would pay
higher premiums if the Republican bill passes, according to an analysis
of a report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
Despite this, Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership refused to allow
votes on the Democratic amendments to fix their bill. That means that
the Democratic alternative is the only way to protect patients and
increase coverage for small business employees.
It sets up a Small Employer Health Benefits Plan that would work like
health plans that now cover Federal employees. It covers all small
businesses and their employees, offers affordable premiums, and ensures
that people get coverage at least as good as what Members of Congress
gets. And unlike the Republican bill, it preserves State patient
protections.
To pass the Democratic alternative and provide affordable and
comprehensive health coverage to small businesses, we need Republicans
to stand up to their leadership and vote ``yes'' on the Democratic
alternative. But before that, Republicans have yet another opportunity
to stop blocking tax relief for millions of military and working
families. To do that, all they have to do is stand up to the Republican
leadership on the important parliamentary vote on the previous
question. If we defeat the previous question, the Democrats can amend
the rule to allow the House to vote on the child tax credit and the
Armed Forces Fairness Act. The President could sign both of these bills
tomorrow if only Republicans would finally stop standing in the way.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the Republicans to put the American people above
their leadership today.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the legislation that we are bringing to the floor today,
what it does is that it gives small businesses the ability to come
together and have

[[Page H5557]]

the purchasing power and the leverage, if you will, that currently only
large corporations have with the concept, with the goal of bringing
down health care costs and offering products, offering health
insurance, to those workers who work the overwhelming majority of
workers in the United States who work for small businesses. That is
what we are trying to do.
I heard my friend on the other side of the aisle say that they have
other ideas. Well, we granted the Democrats the ability to bring forth
to the floor today their substitute, and so let the debate begin. And
if the membership believes that concerns are better addressed in their
substitute, the membership may be swayed to support the substitute. We
happen to believe our legislation is better. But that is why we will
have this debate. So we granted the substitute. And we strongly believe
that small businesses should have that ability to come together across
State lines and acquire much more leverage and much more purchasing
power when they are trying to provide health insurance for their
workers. That is what we are trying to do today.
So we hear all sorts of things because we live in a wonderful
democracy and everything can be brought out under the sun. But that is
what we are trying to do. We are trying to lower health care costs. We
are trying to provide health insurance to more people in this country
by permitting small businesses to come together. That is what we are
trying to do today. Democrats say they have a better idea. That is why
we granted their substitute. We do not happen to believe they have a
better idea, but we allowed the debate.
After hearing all sorts of confusing things, I wanted to, in case
somebody is listening to the debate, get back to what we are actually
trying to do, Mr. Speaker.
We think it is a fair rule. We think it is fair in this case to
provide the opportunity to debate by making in order the minority
party's substitute and we think we have a good product. A lot of
Members have worked hard on this product. So we want to get to the
debate and we would urge support for the rule by the membership.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), the ranking member, for yielding me
time.
My good friend from Florida, I believe, has in some way characterized
the dilemma that we face continuously in this body. Where there are
opportunities for us to come together around both a common good and a
common cause, leave it to the majority to throw a stinker in the mix.
This bill has a number of co-sponsors and I know why. Because all of us
have small businesses and have heard from them repeatedly about a very
important concept and that is to be allowed to join together to promote
good health plans for their employees.
Any of us who have large numbers of constituents who are small
business owners or have come to this floor at any time, we have
remarked that small business is the backbone of America. And so the
idea of associated health plans is a reasonable idea, Mr. Speaker. But
what is unreasonable is the very fact that we could not have a common
agreement around the idea that we do not want to banish the sickest of
the group. We do not want to disenfranchise them from being able to
join in these plans.
We do not want women in Maryland or women in Texas who, under their
regulated plans, can get mammograms and then find that this plan is
subject to the management of the Department of Labor without any
regulations, that they would, if you will, disallow or give permission
that you do not have to grant the mammogram provision or the prostate
cancer testing provision in these plans. That is what we are arguing
about.
That is why the Democratic substitute stands more worthy of our
consideration. And that is why I am concerned about this legislation
because I, frankly, believe it should be 435 to zero helping small
businesses. But I have great difficulty with looking at this
legislation, I was considering co-sponsoring it, inasmuch as it takes
away the regulatory arm, and I do not know why we are here running away
from regulations when we have regulated things to the positive.
We have helped to save lives with regulations in this country; but
yet now we want to pass legislation that leaves small businesses, of
all groups, the very nature of their size means that they need extra
help, the Small Business Administration. So we want to take away the
regulations and give them plans that may be, at best, unhelpful to
their employees who will get sick and very sick, and then give them
simply a plan that maybe 2 or 3 of their 10-person business could be
able to be associated with.
Mr. Speaker, we can do better than this, and I would ask my
colleagues to defeat the rule on the previous rule question so that we
can get back to the drawing board of making this a better bill.
I would add something else, Mr. Speaker, that while we are doing this
and fixing problems, can I get the attention of my colleagues on the
other side and ask the question why we cannot pass the low income tax
credit for children? It was passed by the Senate more than 2 weeks ago.
It is a $10 million plan. It will help 19 million children, 2,129,000
in the State of Texas. I have that embossed in my brain, if you will,
literally, in my brain and the reason is because I see these people all
the time.
I do not know if any Members, that Fort Hood in Texas sent more
troops to Iraq than we sent in World War II. Many of these young people
are in Iraq as we speak. Many of those people are in Iraq as we speak
and the way the tax laws, Mr. Speaker, are configurated now, because
were they in combat pay, they would not be eligible for the low income
tax credit, even though they fall within the salary range, which is
$10,000 to $26,000, because those young men and women are making
somewhere around $1,000 to $1,200 a month.
So my concern is that we have it languishing probably with a
conference, and if any of us knows what a conference means, there is no
way of telling how long that bickering would occur, when we could take
the Senate bill sitting at the desk, the Speaker could lift that Senate
bill. It could pass. That is the bill, $3.5 billion is what that bill
would cost, and now we have an $82 billion white whale languishing in
the shallow waters of a conference committee, never to be heard from
again.
Mr. Speaker, let me close by saying that the Wall Street Journal says
that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and others in the House
deliberately made their child tax credit bill richer than the Senate
version because they knew that the Senate conferees would walk away and
pass nothing instead.
Mr. Speaker, let me just say, we have got to do a better job of
fixing problems for Americans.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the underlying legislation that we are bringing to the
floor today is very important, as I stated before. We believe in small
business. We believe in the fact that the overwhelming majority of
workers in this country work in small businesses, and we want to
incentivate those small businesses in providing health care, health
insurance to their workers.
I think it is important to reduce the over 40 million number of
workers in this country who do not have insurance. We think we are
going to do so in a significant way with this legislation.
With regards to some of the allegations my friend from Texas, the
previous speaker, said with regard to the low income tax credit, we
passed that last week and we really do not believe, her words were, ``a
white whale'' we passed. We do not think it is a white whale to pass
the legislation that we passed. We do not think it is a white whale to
include, as we did, tax breaks for military families. We do not think
it is a whale to include tax breaks, as we did, for victims of the
Shuttle crash tragedy. We do not think it is a whale to extend, as we
did last week, in precisely the low income tax credit legislation, the
child tax credit until the year 2010. We do not believe that is a
whale. We believe it is important legislation.
But back to the point of what we are doing this week, because that we
did last week, despite the fact that our

[[Page H5558]]

friends on the other side of the aisle voted against it, but it is a
free country. What we are doing this week is bringing forth with this
rule, that permits the Democratic substitute, legislation that will
permit small businesses to come together and pool their resources and
increase their leverage so that they can provide, so that they can
provide to the millions of workers who work for small businesses and do
not have health insurance, health insurance at better rates and with
better terms. That is what we are doing.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Crowley).

{time} 1045

Mr. CROWLEY. My colleagues, when debate is completed here on the
rule, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will order the
previous question. And I would ask my colleagues on the Democratic side
of the aisle to vote ``no'' on the previous question to allow the
consideration of the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act, which is currently
pending before the Speaker's desk, and allow for the Senate language
for the child tax credit to come before this House. It will allow us to
have a vote on that legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that under this rule we will have
the opportunity to have a substitute, and I do express my appreciation
for that. I intend to vote for the substitute and against the majority
bill before us. But if I could, I will use this opportunity to speak
about what will then be offered later on again today in the IRS
substitute, the Rangel substitute, that will once again have a
substitute that will include the Senate language on the child tax
credit so it will give our colleagues on the other side of the aisle an
opportunity to vote up or down on the Senate language.
But I do not think that that substitute will pass at the end of the
day. I am a realist. I do not think so because I believe my Republican
friends on the other side of the aisle have, unfortunately,
shamelessly, brought a sham child tax credit bill before the House this
last week, a bill our President opposes, a bill that a Republican-
controlled Senate opposes as well. They knew when the House voted on
that bill that it would never, and I say never, be enacted. In fact,
their own Republican Senate leaders have admitted that it will never be
enacted, the House version.
Instead, the Republicans would rather play politics with this issue,
politics with the lives of 6.5 million Americans and working families.
Yes, they work. They are not on welfare, as some would have you wrongly
believe. And they do have children. Believe it or not working people
have families, and they do make babies, and they do have expenses to
pay for. Playing politics is what is happening with the lives of
260,000 children, their families on active military duty in Iraq who
lose this credit under the Republican sham bill.
This Republican scheme is so egregious that even Senator John McCain
said he did not understand how the Republican leadership and President
Bush left enlisted men and women out of this tax package.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simmons). Members should avoid
references to statements made in the Senate.
Mr. CROWLEY. Only in a positive way, Mr. Speaker. Only in a positive
way did I make reference to the Senator.
They play politics with the 3.1 million Americans who have lost their
jobs since President Bush became President, with even more job losses
projected.
Again, it is shameful to be offering a tax cut to the rich while
cutting benefits for working people, cutting benefits for our enlisted
personnel and their families, cutting benefits for veterans, cutting
benefits for seniors on Medicare, and allowing 3.1 million Americans
who have lost their jobs, jobs that have dispersed since President Bush
became President and the Republicans began their economic policies 3
short years ago.
Mr. President, you have the power, it is in your hands, to demand the
Senate bill be brought before this House for a vote. You can bring the
needed pressure to bear on our colleagues on the other side of the
aisle for an up or down vote on the Senate bill, and you can have that
bill on your desk this evening. Do not let us leave here today, do not
let us finish the work of this House this week before demanding that
the Senate bill be brought up in this House and passed so that you can
sign it, Mr. President, this evening or sometime this week before we
leave.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is reminded to address the
Chair and not the President.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
I think it is important to point out, because my dear friend who just
spoke stated that the President of the United States opposed, that is
what the gentleman said, the legislation that we here in the House
passed last week to provide precisely the low-income child tax credit
and, in addition to that, provide tax breaks for military families and
for families of the shuttle crash tragedy and extending the child tax
credit through the year 2010.
The President supports the legislation. In fact, I am handed here the
statement officially put out by the administration in support of the
legislation that the House passed. This official statement of
administration policy is dated June 12. So I wanted to make that clear
on the record.
We are very proud of what we did last week, and we hope and certainly
would encourage those who are now resolving any differences that may
exist with our friends in the other body that they get that legislation
to the floor of both bodies as soon as possible. That is what we did
last week.
What we are doing this week is we are providing incentives for small
businesses to provide health insurance to the millions of Americans who
work for small businesses in this country and do not have health
insurance. We think there are few issues as important as that issue.
That is why we want to bring that legislation to the floor as soon as
possible, and that is why we have brought a fair rule to the floor to
be able to do so, a rule that makes in order the Democratic substitute
and makes in order, in addition to that, a Democratic motion to
recommit.
So we have been doubly fair in this rule and are very proud of the
underlying legislation, the work product of Members that have worked
long and hard to reduce the number, those millions of Americans who do
not have health insurance and who work for small businesses. We want
small businesses to have the same leverage, to have the same
opportunities to pool their resources, to come together and do so like
large corporations can do so today. That is why we feel so strongly
about this legislation and are in support of it, and that is why we
have brought it forward under a fair rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 additional minutes to the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished
gentleman for yielding me this time and for his leadership and his
kindness.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to respond to some of the comments that I believe
my very, very good friend from Florida has raised, as I think it is
important that we understand that that big, big white whale is
languishing in shallow waters and that is a very difficult journey for
that whale to make. And I do maintain that that whale is languishing.
First of all, I am disappointed that there is now a printed
administration position, because it was very clear that we heard on the
wings of the passage of the Senate bill, the other body, excuse me, Mr.
Speaker, that there was great excitement and we wanted to pass the
freestanding child tax credit bill, $3.5 billion, versus $82 billion
that was going to help our military families immediately.
The reason why I say we are languishing is because, Mr. Speaker, we
are. We have a tank of a bill put forward by the Republicans not moving
at all, and we have low-income families making $10,000 to $26,000
literally suffering because we know that bill is not going to be passed
any time soon. The Wall Street Journal today said, ``Mr. DeLay and
others in the House deliberately made their child tax bill richer

[[Page H5559]]

than the Senate version because they knew the Senate conferees would
walk away and pass nothing.'' Nothing. Instead, the whale is
languishing.
And with respect to this small business health bill, there is not a
soul here who does not advocate for small businesses. But how in the
world can we strap them with a health plan that has no regulations and
we are going to tell women, who either own small businesses and/or work
for them, that there is no room at the inn as relates to mammograms, or
men that there is no room at the inn as relates to prostate cancer
testing? Devastating diseases.
Mr. Speaker, we do have a problem, and this rule should be defeated
so we can get the child tax credit. My friends need to go back to the
drawing board and bring us a small business bill that I would like to
vote for that protects all of small business in America. I think that
is what we need to do.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
First of all, I would tell my dear friend the legislation that we
passed last week, number one, is not a whale; and, number two, it is
not languishing. And I am informed, I know I am not supposed to mention
the other body, but I would wonder how I could get this fact across
without doing so, the conference has begun. The conference has begun
this morning. Or they have agreed to go to conference. Today there has
been the agreement to go to conference precisely on the legislation
that is not a whale. And, thus, the whale that is not is not
languishing.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield to the gentlewoman from
Texas.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. That is good news, that they have gone to
conference. But how many of the conferees, and you know it takes a
majority vote, are agreeing to the $82 billion package from here as
opposed to the unanimous agreement on the $3.5 billion?
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time,
again I do not know the answer to that, but I would say the following:
I would say to my good friend that, number one, I cannot get into the
brain of all the conferees. I think we have to allow them to meet so
that there will be a meeting of the minds, number one. But we certainly
do not think that it is a whale to increase the child tax credit of
$1,000 per child through the year 2010. We do not think that is a
whale. We do not think it is a whale to eliminate the marriage penalty
in the child credit. We do not think it is a whale to accelerate the
increase in the refundable child credit. We do not think it is a whale
to provide tax relief and enhance tax fairness for members of the Armed
Forces. We do not think it is a whale to suspend the tax exempt status
of designated terrorist organizations or to provide tax relief for
astronauts' families, those who died on the space mission. So we think
it is very important what the House did last week.
Now, another statement was made before by one of our friends on the
other side of the aisle that the President does not support the measure
that the House passed last week. Oh, no, no, no. The President is fully
in support of the measure that the House passed last week. So the
legislation that we passed last week we are extremely proud of and the
President supports it.
But we are also very proud of and we are also strongly in support of
what we are trying to do this week, Mr. Speaker. Because we believe
that it should not only be the large corporations that have the ability
to use their great leverage of numbers to offer health insurance to
their workers with the best possible terms. We think small business,
which is the backbone of the American economy, and hires the majority,
employs the majority of the workers in this country, that small
business also should have the opportunity to pool their numbers to
acquire leverage in negotiating terms with those insurance companies
and bring down the rates and offer the best possible terms to the
millions of workers precisely because they work for the backbone of the
American economy, small business. That is what we are doing this week.
So, no, what we did last week is not a whale. What we did last week
is something we are very proud of, and we have the support of the
President of the United States. But what we are doing this week is also
very important, Mr. Speaker, and that is why, with all due respect, I
tell my friends on the other side of the aisle that we have brought
this important piece of legislation to the floor today with a rule that
is fair, a rule that provides the minority party a substitute, the
opportunity to bring forth any concerns they may have in the form of a
substitute; and, in addition, to be doubly fair, we grant our friends
on the other side of the aisle the opportunity to present a motion to
recommit with any further and additional concerns they may have.

{time} 1100

So we are very fair this morning, Mr. Speaker. We are very proud of
the legislation that we are bringing to the floor.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, let us talk about
this child tax credit. When we began with the child tax credit, we were
thinking about families. We were talking about families. We said in
this difficult economic time, it is important for us to hold families
together, to help those struggling, families which have to educate
their children, provide child care, be good parents, sometimes both
parents are working.
It is important to keep families together and to honor the fact that
families want to be together and bring children up in a good
environment.
But the Republicans proved something when they got to the child tax
credit. It was not about all families and keeping all families together
and working with all families, there were some families they did not
care much about, those were poor families. They did not care if you
were a waitress and you had to provide child care for your child and
you had financial constraints, and you had to get them to the soccer
game. They did not care if you were a maid or a janitor. They did not
care if you were making minimum wage trying to afford an apartment so
your children had a roof over their heads. They did not care about you,
they cut you out. In the dark of the night, they cut you out.
But can Members imagine that they did not care about our men and
women overseas in Iraq? They did not care about them either. They did
not care about our military families. They said it is great, they are
doing a great job. They are so brave, but they did not care about the
children, they did not care about those families because they caught
cut those families out of the child tax credit also.
So let us say, for example, that I am the wife who is staying home
with the two kids while my husband is in Iraq. I have no problems, I
have no financial constraints. They are over there, the President
declared a victory on that aircraft carrier, but my husband is still in
Iraq. By the way, every day someone is killed out there. It could be my
husband; but I do not have any problems. I do not have any anxieties.
The Republicans did not care about those families. I do not have to get
my kids to soccer or worry about their education. I do not have to
worry about additional child care or taking them over to my mom or
something to take care of because my husband is not here. He is serving
his country. He is keeping our freedoms safe. But the Republicans did
not care about that kind of family.
Okay, we would anticipate that they would not care about poor
families; but could we anticipate that they would not care about
military families? I am sitting there as a wife, and I have got no
problems. But somebody who makes $80,000 a year, they got the child tax
credit, not me. Not my children, not my husband. And then they said oh,
they got caught. People figured it out. So they put it back in, but not
all of them. There are still military families cut out because they
make too little money. But in order to put some of the families back,
they put in more tax cuts for people who make $100,000 a year and
$150,000 a year and $3 million a year, but not someone who makes
$10,000 a year or someone who makes $14,000. Those families do not
count. Those children are not important enough.

[[Page H5560]]

Mr. Speaker, they have no problems. They have no financial anxiety.
Remember why we wanted this child tax credit, to ensure that families
could come together and work together and be together. That is why we
wanted the child tax credit.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, precisely because we are concerned about and care about
the majority of the workers of this country who happen to work for
small businesses, that we want to create the possibility that they will
be able to have health insurance just like those who work for large
corporations have health insurance, so precisely to mention some of the
people who were mentioned by my friend, the previous speaker, yes, we
think if someone is a janitor or a maid or work in a restaurant or
drive a truck or deliver packages, you should also have health
insurance, and your employer should be able to pool its resources to
acquire the leverage and the purchasing power that large corporations
have when they get into the room to negotiate terms and conditions with
the insurance companies. That is what we are trying to do today.
I am very pleased that this debate has given us the opportunity to
point out to our colleagues and to the American people what precisely
the hard-working Members who have brought forth this work product, this
legislation today, are allowing the Congress to do for the American
people. And that is the majority of workers in this country who work
for small businesses should also have the right to have health
insurance, should also have the right to have their employer have the
purchasing power and the leverage and negotiating terms and conditions
for health insurance for the workers of America that the large
companies have.
So that is the essence of what we are doing this week with regard to
what we did last week, which was to provide the low-income child tax
credit and to also provide an increase in the child credit through the
year 2010 and eliminate the marriage penalty in the child credit and
accelerate the increase in the refundable child credit, provide tax
relief and enhanced tax fairness for members of the Armed Forces,
suspend the tax-exempt status of terrorist organizations, provide tax
relief for the families of astronauts who die on space missions. We
think it is important to do that, and that is what we did last week.
They have agreed to go to conference today on that important piece of
legislation, but let us not focus on one important piece of legislation
to the detriment of another important piece of legislation, which is
the one we are bringing forth today, and that is let us allow small
business to have the leverage, have the purchasing power to face health
insurance like large companies can. That is what we are doing today. We
are proud of it, and we want to get to a debate under a fair rule which
provides the Democrats a substitute and a motion to recommit. That is
what we are doing today.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote no on the previous question. If
the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the
rule. My amendment will provide that immediately after the House passes
the Small Business Health Fairness Act, it will take from the Speaker's
table the Senate passed version of H.R. 1307, the Armed Forces Tax
Fairness Act.
Additionally, my amendment will add to H.R. 1307 the text of H.R.
1308 as passed by the Senate, which restores the refundable child tax
credit that was removed from the Republican tax bill. This will allow
the House to combine these two Senate passed bills and immediately send
them back to the Senate and then hopefully on to the White House for
the President's signature. If this happens, we can begin helping
America's low and modest income working families right away and we can
give tax relief to those brave members of the military who are in
combat overseas.
As my colleagues know, this is the seventh time we have tried to
bring the child tax credit to the floor for a clean up or down vote.
The reason we have continued to persevere is because this is so
important to America's families, particularly those making at or near
the minimum wage, families who struggle every day to get by. They have
no one else to fight their battle for them. They cannot afford to hire
expensive lobbyists, and they cannot afford to be a Bush pioneer. We
are here for them and we will keep fighting for their voices to be
heard.
Vote no on the previous question so we can finally consider these two
Senate passed tax plans, tax plans which will help those most in need
of relief. I would like to stress that a no vote will not stop us from
considering the Small Business Health Fairness Act. However, a yes vote
will once again, for the seventh time, block the House from having an
opportunity to vote to restore the child tax credit that was
unceremoniously stripped from the Republican reward-the-rich tax bill
that was passed last month. Again, vote no on the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment
and extraneous materials be printed in the Record immediately prior to
the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Quinn). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we say vote yes. We say vote yes to allowing small
businesses to have the leverage and purchasing power that large
businesses have, to increase significantly the number of American
workers, the majority of whom work for small businesses, who can have
health insurance. We think the issue is that important that we should
vote yes. Vote yes on the previous question, vote yes on the rule, and
let us get to the underlying legislation, legislation which is as
important as the legislation we passed last week.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Frost is as follows:

Previous Question for H. Res. 283--Rule on H.R. 660: Small Business
Health Fairness Act of 2003

At the end of the resolution insert the following new
section:
``Sec. 2. Immediately after disposition of the bill(H.R.
660), the House shall be considered to have taken from the
Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 1307) 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, and for other purposes, with the Senate
amendment thereto, and a motion that the House concur in the
Senate amendment with an amendment consisting of the text of
the Senate amendment to the text of H.R. 1308 shall be
considered as pending without intervention of any point of
order. The senate amendment 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.''

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the
balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 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 224,
nays 198, not voting 12, as follows:

[Roll No. 289]

YEAS--224

[[Page H5561]]

Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Janklow
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NAYS--198

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (OK)
Case
Clay
Clyburn
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall
Harman
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOT VOTING--12

Bartlett (MD)
Carson (IN)
Conyers
Gephardt
Grijalva
Hastings (FL)
Johnson (IL)
Lewis (GA)
Miller (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Weiner

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Quinn) (during the vote). Members are
advised that 2 minutes remain on this vote.

{time} 1133

Messrs. ABERCROMBIE, POMEROY, and DAVIS of Tennessee changed their
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. MORAN of Kansas changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 289 I was
inadvertently detained had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Quinn). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. FROST of Texas. 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 224,
noes 199, not voting 11, as follows:

[Roll No. 290]

AYES--224

Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Janklow
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--199

[[Page H5562]]

Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOT VOTING--11

Bartlett (MD)
Carson (IN)
Conyers
Gephardt
Hastings (FL)
Hunter
Lewis (GA)
Miller (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Weiner

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there
are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

{time} 1140

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.

____________________