[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 136 (Tuesday, September 30, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H9008-H9011]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 EXTENDING TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM

  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut (during special order of Mr. Chocola). 
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table 
the bill (H.R. 3146) to extend the Temporary Assistance for Needy 
Families block grant program, and certain tax and trade programs, and 
for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, and concur in the 
Senate amendment.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Clerk read the Senate amendment, as follows:

       Senate amendment:
       Page 10, after line 16, insert:

     SEC. 402. EXTENSION OF PROVISION EQUALIZING URBAN AND RURAL 
                   STANDARDIZED MEDICARE INPATIENT HOSPITAL 
                   PAYMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 402(b) 
     of the Miscellaneous Appropriations Act, 2003 (Public Law 
     108-7; 117 Stat. 548) are each amended by striking 
     ``September 30, 2003'' and insert ``March 31, 2004''.
       (b) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the amendments 
     made by subsection (a) shall take effect as if included in 
     the enactment of the Miscellaneous Appropriations Act, 2003.
       (2) Authority to delay implementation.--
       (a) In general.--If the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services (in this subsection referred to as the 
     ``Secretary'') determines that it is not administratively 
     feasible to implement the amendments made by subsection (a), 
     notwithstanding such amendments and in order to comply with 
     Congressional intent, the Secretary may delay the 
     implementation of such amendments until such time as the 
     Secretary determines to be appropriate, but in no case later 
     than November 1, 2003.
       (B) Temporary adjustment for remainder of fiscal year 2004 
     to effect full rate change.--If the Secretary delays 
     implementation of the amendments made by subsection (a) under 
     subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall make such adjustment to 
     the amount of payments affected by such delay, for the 
     portion of fiscal year 2004 after the date of the delayed 
     implementation, in such manner as the Secretary estimates 
     will ensure that the total payments for inpatient hospital 
     services so affected with respect to such fiscal year is the 
     same as would have been made if this paragraph had not been 
     enacted.
       (C) No effect on payments for subsequent payment periods.--
     The application of subparagraphs (A) and (B) shall not affect 
     payment rates and shall not be taken into account in 
     calculating payment amounts for services furnished for 
     periods after September 30, 2004.

[[Page H9009]]

       (D) Administration of provisions.--
       (i) No rulemaking or notice required.--The Secretary may 
     carry out the authority under this paragraph by program 
     memorandum or otherwise and is not required to prescribe 
     regulations or to provide notice in the Federal Register in 
     order to carry out such authority.
       (ii) Limitation of review.--There shall be no 
     administrative or judicial review under section 1869 or 1878 
     of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ff and 1395oo), or 
     otherwise of any delay or determination made by the Secretary 
     under this paragraph or the application of the payment rates 
     determined under this paragraph.

  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut (during the reading). Madam Speaker, I 
ask unanimous consent that the Senate amendment be considered as read 
and printed in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Miller of Michigan). Is there objection 
to the request of the gentlewoman from Connecticut?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the initial request of 
the gentlewoman from Connecticut?
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam Speaker, reserving the right to object, I do not 
intend to object, but under my reservation, I yield to the gentleman 
from Oregon (Mr. Wu).
  Mr. WU. I thank the gentleman from Maryland for yielding. Madam 
Speaker, I rise to express my grave concern with the potential 
termination of the successful Welfare Waiver Program in my State of 
Oregon because of Federal action or inaction. Today we are moving 
forward again on legislation to extend the Temporary Assistance for 
Needy Families, or TANF, Program through a period of time until we can 
do the full reauthorization. Also today in Oregon, a successful State-
designed welfare-to-work program which has provided a gateway from 
welfare to work for thousands of Oregonians may expire through our 
action or inaction.
  My State of Oregon currently operates its welfare program under a 
Federal waiver. In Oregon, the program is known as the Oregon option 
and in the last 6 years, it has seen caseload reduction rates above the 
national average. Our innovative program allows Oregon the flexibility 
to consider individuals on a case-by-case basis. Some folks simply need 
a little job training or job search skills and then they are ready to 
transition back into the workforce. Others need more extensive drug and 
alcohol treatments or basic education before they are able to hold down 
a job. This combination of rehabilitative services to the most needy 
and more education and job training activities for others has proved to 
be a great success. For 18 months, I have sought to protect and extend 
the successful State innovation. My friends and colleagues have 
acknowledged the success of the Oregon program and the importance of 
preserving individual State innovation. However, with the passage of 
today's extension, we find ourselves punishing, rather than rewarding, 
innovation.
  I ask the gentlewoman from Connecticut to assist the citizens of 
Oregon and the Nation in this matter, and I am seeking it here tonight.
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I 
certainly appreciate my colleague from Oregon's concern with his 
State's inventive approach and successful program in support of women 
on welfare, individuals on welfare seeking the independence of 
returning to the workforce. I am pleased that the next round of welfare 
reform will allow a great deal more flexibility in State programs.
  As the gentleman is aware, a number of State waiver programs have 
expired in recent years. In June 2003, Oregon Senators were informed by 
Secretary Thompson that, despite the expiration of Oregon's waiver that 
month, Oregon was not in danger of failing to satisfy work rate 
requirements in the future. The reason is because Oregon's caseload 
reduction credits totally wipe out any effective work rate requirement 
in the State.
  Here is how Secretary Thompson put it:
  ``Oregon is not in violation and, based on Oregon's history, is not 
expected to be in violation, and, therefore, Oregon will not be subject 
to penalties for the next 3 months or until reauthorization. Even 
without its waiver, Oregon's program would have met its all-family work 
participation requirement in 2002 because it effectively had no 
participation requirement. Should reauthorization not occur prior to 
the end of the fiscal year and current law be extended again, I would 
remain confident, based on the facts that I have before me, that Oregon 
could continue to operate its program without becoming subject to 
participation rate penalties.''
  As the gentleman knows, the House-passed welfare reauthorization 
bill, H.R. 4, includes provisions that would allow States to apply for 
new waivers of the TANF program. That reflects additional flexibility 
for States and is a positive step. I will fight in conference for 
enhanced waiver authority for States in conference with the Senate.
  Mr. WU. If the gentleman will yield further, I would make inquiry of 
the gentlewoman from Connecticut, I would like to make two inquiries, 
and let me do them separately. Oregon has had a terrible unemployment 
situation. Out of the last 24 months, we have topped the Nation in 
unemployment 17 out of those 24 months. We have oscillated between 8.1 
percent unemployment and 8.8 percent unemployment. I believe we are 
currently at a seasonally-adjusted 8.5 percent unemployment rate.
  My first inquiry of the gentlewoman from Connecticut is that the 
factual predicate, upon which the Secretary's letter is written, is 
based on weighted averages of caseload reduction. Given the terrible 
situation that our State of Oregon is in, it may take some time for 
this Congress to reauthorize TANF. If it does take a substantial amount 
of time, there may come a time that, given our unemployment rate, our 
caseload reduction may no longer be able to meet some of the current 
statutory requirements. Is it the gentlewoman's intention to work on a 
bipartisan basis to encourage the Secretary and the administration to 
continue to extend those State waivers which are being informally 
extended currently by the Secretary?
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. It is simply my belief that within the 
time frame of this extension, we will be able to permanently 
reauthorize the welfare program and add to it the more flexible 
provisions that are in the underlying bill with some interest that the 
Senate has expressed in additional waivers.
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam Speaker, under my reservation, let me just 
compliment the gentleman from Oregon for raising this issue. There are 
States that have operated under waiver authority that has expired. I 
can assure you, although we have not been able to work out a bipartisan 
bill, there is bipartisan agreement to maintain the flexibility of the 
States under the waiver authority. I know that there are efforts to 
extend it and expand it, but at least there is agreement that we want 
to maintain at least where the States are today in their ability to use 
authority to tailor programs for their individual State needs. That is 
a bipartisan understanding, and I believe, also, there is a lot of 
support in the other body.
  I thank the gentleman for raising these issues, because I think they 
are very important as we move forward in the debate, not only to Oregon 
but to other States. I know the gentleman is fighting very hard for his 
own State. We appreciate that very much. We certainly do not want to 
see a diminished ability of your State to perform its services.
  Mr. WU. I thank the gentleman from Maryland. I will take the 
gentlewoman's response as we certainly aspire to extend this to the 
full reauthorization within the limits of this extension, but that on a 
best efforts basis, should we not be able to do that within this period 
of time, which I believe is March of 2004, that we will endeavor 
together to continue on this informal basis to extend the waivers under 
which Oregon and other States have operated.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. It will certainly be an issue that we 
will discuss together before the expiration if we think reauthorization 
cannot be finalized.

                              {time}  2115

  Mr. WU. Madam Speaker, if I may make my second inquiry of the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut, I would like to inquire of the 
gentlewoman as to her intent to assist Oregon and other States with an 
extension specifically for States on welfare waivers in the

[[Page H9010]]

TANF reauthorization bill as it is currently being considered before 
this Congress and this body and the other body.
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam Speaker, before I yield to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut, it has been the position at least of this body by its 
formal actions to expand the authority to what is known as a 
superwaiver. That is controversial, and I am not sure there is 
certainly not an agreement on a bipartisan basis for a superwaiver; 
however, the superwaiver sort of consumes the individual State waivers. 
It is certainly the position of the majority of this House on both 
sides of the aisle that the States have at least the waiver authorities 
that they had under the expiring TANF laws. I will be glad to yield to 
the gentlewoman from Connecticut, but I am not certain that there is an 
agreement right now as to individual State waivers as compared to 
broader authority. I can tell the position that I would like to see is 
individual States, but I understand there is no consensus yet on that 
issue.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CARDIN. Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I agree with the 
gentleman from Maryland. There is a lot of interest in the States 
having flexibility to tailor their programs to their own specific 
needs, but exactly the structure of that authority is a matter of 
disagreement at this time; and we will look to see how the Senate 
resolves those issues and then in conference find an agreement that we 
think will meet the needs of the majority of the States.
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam Speaker, I appreciate what the gentlewoman said. I 
think it is, in fairness to the gentleman from Oregon, certainly our 
desire to make sure the States maintain the type of authority Oregon 
has been able to use to create creative programs, and I really do thank 
the gentleman for bringing this to our attention. It is a very 
important issue to our States.
  Mr. WU. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CARDIN. Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the 
gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. WU. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I would like to inquire one more time of the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut as to her intention to work in this body in conference and 
with the Senate with respect to specific State waiver authority as we 
go forward with this reauthorization.
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam Speaker, I think the gentlewoman has already 
answered that. Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut again if she wants to further clarify it.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I would indicate to the 
gentleman that the bill that passed the House has a very broad waiver 
of authority in it. There are some that think it is too broad and would 
like narrower waiver authority. We will see what the Senate has done, 
and then we will see if the conference committee can come to a 
conclusion about the structure of the waiver authority in the future. 
But there was a waiver authority in the last welfare bill. I think 
there is universal agreement that States need flexibility to structure 
their programs to meet the specific needs and circumstances of their 
own people, and so this will be a significant issue that will be 
addressed.
  I cannot tell the gentleman at this point whether there will be 
precisely the narrow State waiver authority there is under current law, 
but I would also remind the gentleman that that waiver authority under 
current law has a defect. The waivers expire and are not 
reauthorizable. Under current law, they have to reapply for them. So 
under current law there is a problem about how do we move the 
successful waivered program into the mainstream, and I think that is an 
issue that the conference needs to resolve as well because my State 
also has a waiver that has expired as well as the same kind of 
unemployment rate, unfortunately, that Oregon has.
  So there will be a number of people in conference concerned about 
this issue, but I certainly cannot assure the gentleman that there will 
be exactly the same kind of state-based waiver authority in the 
reauthorization that there has been in the past bill. There is a lot 
more interest amongst many in a broader waiver authority that 
encompasses a greater variety of bills so that they could better 
integrate broad services for people coming off welfare. So it is a long 
debate. We are not going to resolve it here, but I do appreciate the 
gentleman from Oregon bringing to this floor his concern about his 
State's rights to tailor its welfare program to meet the needs of its 
people. In the end that is really what makes a Federal program 
successful or not successful is that local control and local power, and 
I agree with the gentleman that that is terribly important to the 
quality of Federal programs and their success.
  Mr. WU. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CARDIN. Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the 
gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. WU. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The language of this body is beautiful for its specificity and 
nonspecificity, and I fully appreciate that. I certainly do not expect 
a solution to the problems of this particular reauthorization this 
evening. I would like to simply note that under the plenary authority 
that Congress has over many issues, including this one, that it is 
within the ability of Congress in this bill to extend expired waivers, 
and I would just like to log that as a point of departure for States 
like Connecticut and Oregon, the waivers for which have expired; and if 
there is a will, there will be a way.
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam Speaker, further reserving my right to object, just 
to respond to the gentleman, I agree completely with what he has said, 
and it has been the position of some of us to do the extension of 
individual States that had it prior to the expiration of the bill. 
There has been a consensus, as I have indicated before, to give States 
at least that flexibility; and the majority has decided to go beyond 
that with the superwaiver in this body. So the gentleman's point is 
very well stated, which I happen to personally agree with; and I 
appreciate his bringing it to our attention.
  Mr. WU. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman and I thank the 
gentlewoman.

                                           The Secretary of Health


                                           and Human Services,

                                    Washington, DC, June 24, 2003.
     Hon. Ron Wyden,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Wyden: Oregon has been operating its Temporary 
     Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program under a waiver 
     since 1996 and this waiver is due to expire at the end of 
     this month. I thank you for raising with the Administration 
     your concerns about your State's TANF program and its waiver, 
     and I admire the tremendous efforts you have been making on 
     Oregon's behalf to see that your State has the ability to 
     operate the best TANF program it can. I believe that Oregon 
     will be able to maintain its current program through the end 
     of this fiscal year, and ask you to continue working with me 
     to complete reauthorization legislation that will improve 
     TANF for families across the nation.
       The rigorous evaluation of your Portland program has 
     documented some of the most impressive impacts on increased 
     earnings, improved job quality and reductions in welfare 
     dependency of any program that has ever been evaluated. This 
     impressive record of accomplishment is one of which you can 
     be proud.
       I know that your efforts in support of Oregon's program are 
     grounded in the lessons you have learned from the evaluation 
     of your State's success and these lessons will be important 
     in informing the debate on issues that will be considered in 
     TANF reauthorization. Your commitment and leadership on these 
     issues continues to benefit the people of Oregon.
       Oregon's TANF program operates with a waiver granted under 
     the former Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) 
     program. When AFDC was converted into TANF as part of the 
     Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation 
     Act of 1996 (PRWORA), the new law enabled States such as 
     Oregon that had previously approved waiver programs to 
     continue operating those waivers. However, there is no 
     provision in law that would permit the Administration to 
     extend such waivers, as it was anticipated that these 
     programs would eventually align themselves with the larger 
     TANF reforms upon completion of their waivers. Therefore, 
     extending existing waivers would require changing current 
     law.
       TANF is currently authorized only through the end of this 
     month, and legislation is before the Senate that would 
     temporarily extend the program through September, 2003,

[[Page H9011]]

     the end of FY 2003. The Administration strongly supports 
     passage of this emergency measure to keep the current program 
     operating, and enable Congress to complete work on 
     reauthorization. Without this measure, Oregon would be 
     denied access to over $40 million in TANF funding 
     scheduled to be made available for the fourth quarter next 
     week.
       I understand Oregon will maintain its current program while 
     Congress completes work on reauthorization. Oregon is not in 
     violation and based on Oregon's history is not expected to be 
     in violation and therefore Oregon will not be subject to 
     penalties for the next three months or until reauthorization.
       Let me explain. Oregon's current TANF program has many 
     elements, most of which are accommodated under TANF and are 
     permissible under current law. However, I understand the 
     State is concerned about its ability to continue operating 
     two particular policies when its waiver expires. Oregon's 
     waiver allows the State to count toward its required work 
     participation rate certain types of activities, such as 
     participation in substance abuse treatment and extended 
     education and training, which would not otherwise be 
     countable under TANF. Your State's waiver also permits 
     counting of certain adults who are participating but have not 
     attained at least 30 hours of participation per week, which 
     is also required under TANF law.
       Importantly, even without its waiver, TANF would not 
     prohibit Oregon from engaging clients in the activities they 
     currently do, nor does it prohibit the State from assigning 
     hours for particular clients at levels below the current-law 
     standard. These issues are relevant in that States must meet 
     minimum participation rates. However, according to Oregon's 
     current data, the State would be likely to meet its required 
     participation in FY 2003, even though Oregon's ability to 
     count certain activities and clients under its waiver will 
     end at the end of this month.
       Oregon achieved a participation rate for all its families 
     of 61.1% in FY 2002. It would have achieved only an 8.0% all-
     family rate if it had operated the same way, but counted 
     participation without its current waiver. However, because 
     Oregon achieved such a dramatic reduction in TANF caseload 
     over the past several years, it enjoys a caseload reduction 
     credit that reduced its effective all-family participation 
     rate requirement to 0% in FY 2002. Thus, even without its 
     waiver, Oregon's program would have met its all-family 
     participation requirement in FY 2002 because it effectively 
     had no participation requirement.
       Oregon's caseload reduction credit in FY 2001 was 56.2%, 
     and in FY 2002 was 58.3%. I would anticipate that this would 
     not change considerably in FY 2003, and because the required 
     all-family rate for FY 2003 remained at only 50%, the State 
     is very likely facing no participation requirement for the 
     current year as well. Furthermore, work participation rates 
     are measured on a full year basis, meaning that for FY 2003 
     Oregon's rate would be an average of what it achieved 
     throughout the year. Given Oregon's extremely high 
     participation rates under its waiver, and the fact it will 
     have operated under the waiver for three of the four quarters 
     of FY 2003, it should achieve a very high rate even if the 
     final quarter is calculated without the waiver.
       Oregon also must meet a separate participation rate for its 
     2-parent families. With its waiver, the State achieved a 
     53.8% 2-parent rate in FY 2002, but due to the caseload 
     reduction credit it earned, only needed to meet a 31.7% 
     standard. Again, given the State's likely high 2-parent 
     participation for the first three quarters of FY 2003, it 
     should meet this standard as well.
       Based upon this, I am confident that Oregon can continue to 
     operate its current TANF program through the end of this 
     fiscal year without concerns about becoming subject to 
     penalties for meeting its participation requirements. Should 
     reauthorization not occur prior to the end of the fiscal year 
     and current law be extended again, I would remain confident 
     based on the facts that I have before me that Oregon could 
     continue to operate its program without becoming subject to 
     participation rate penalties.
       TANF is a great program, and with your help we can make it 
     work even better in the future. TANF provides States 
     tremendous flexibility to fund and operate work and job 
     preparation activities, and to provide supportive services 
     and benefits so clients can find work, support themselves and 
     build a better life for their families. I know you share my 
     interest in seeing the program reauthorized as quickly as 
     possible, and seeing that important improvements are made to 
     enable States to engage all cases in meaningful and helpful 
     activities so they can move into work quickly and 
     successfully. Reauthorization is crucial for Oregon. As you 
     know, the President's reauthorization proposal includes 
     changes that would enable States to count various barrier 
     removal activities toward their participation rates, as 
     Oregon is doing now. It would also eliminate the separate 2-
     parent participation rate.
       I appreciate the impressive work you are doing for the 
     State of Oregon, and particularly your attention to this 
     critical program that has become so important to helping our 
     neediest families build better lives. The State of Oregon has 
     done a wonderful job with its TANF program over the years, 
     and we will continue to work with you on reauthorization 
     legislation to see that we build the best program for Oregon 
     and all of America.
       The Office of Management and Budget advises that it has no 
     objection to this letter from the standpoint of the 
     Administration's program.
           Sincerely,
                                                Tommy G. Thompson.

  Mr. CARDIN. Madam Speaker, this is very important legislation. It 
extends the TANF programs and related programs for the next 6 months so 
that we can try to work out a long-term, multiyear extension of the 
TANF programs and related programs. I thank the gentlewoman for 
bringing this legislation forward.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CARDIN. I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, this legislation is 
nearly identical to H.R. 3146, a bill the House unanimously approved 
last week. The only change is the addition of a 6-month extension of 
expiring Medicare payment provisions affecting hospitals in small 
cities and rural areas. These provisions need to be passed today and 
signed into law immediately to ensure the continued smooth operation of 
programs affecting health, welfare, and commerce throughout the 
country. I urge the support of this body.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Speaker, this Member wishes to add his strong 
support for H.R. 3146 and would like to commend the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas], the Chairman of the House Ways 
and Means Committee, for introducing this important legislation and for 
his efforts to extend the authorization for the Temporary Assistance 
for Needy Families (TANF) program, as well as related welfare reform 
initiatives, such as the mandatory child care program, the abstinence 
education program, and the transitional medical assistance program. 
Moreover, this Member would like to thank Chairman Thomas for including 
language in H.R. 3146 to address Medicare payment disparities between 
rural and urban hospitals.
  The Rural Health Care Coalition, which this Member currently leads as 
the Interim Co-Chairman, has been diligently working to bring equity to 
the rural health care delivery system. One of the Coalition's key 
priorities has been to address hospital payment disparities to ensure 
that facilities in rural areas and small cities can stay in business 
and continue serving patients who need care.
  Medicare pays for inpatient services in large urban areas using a 
standardized amount that is 1.6 percent larger than the standardized 
amount used to reimburse hospitals in other areas (both rural areas and 
small urban areas). The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2003 (Public 
Law No. 108-7) provided a six-month base payment increase for rural and 
small urban hospitals from April 1, 2003 to September 30, 2003. 
Specifically, this measure raised the inpatient base rate for hospitals 
in rural and urban areas to the level of the rate for those in large 
urban areas.
  The bill before us today will extend this payment increase until 
March 31, 2004. Such action is cruical--especially for cash-strapped 
rural facilities which are near the breaking point and in need of 
urgent aid. This policy will help maintain access to care in rural and 
less populated urban areas of the country by better aligning hospitals' 
payments to their average costs. The estimated impact of eliminating 
the base rate differential for six more months will result in $3.8 
million for Nebraska hospitals, according to the Nebraska Hospital 
Association. This Member will continue to work on initiatives to bring 
even greater Medicare equity to Nebraska this year.
  In closing, this Member urges his colleagues to support H.R. 3146. 
Reducing the difference in Medicare reimbursement levels between rural 
and urban hospitals is critical. Rural hospitals receive less Federal 
funding than hospitals in urban areas for providing the same services. 
This legislation will keep base payments at the same level as those in 
urban areas for six more months.
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Miller of Michigan). Is there objection 
to the initial request of the gentlewoman from Connecticut?
  There was no objection.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________