[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 124 (Tuesday, July 31, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H9253-H9268]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[[Page H9253]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
House of Representatives
{time} 1630
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008--Continued
That is certainly going to be true for the children's health
insurance bill, which really is a huge step in the direction of
Washington-controlled bureaucratic health care.
So it is appropriate that we appreciate the nexus between this bill,
the Agriculture appropriations bill, and that. One is the process was
so flawed on the health care bill that we like to commend our
colleagues on the other side of the aisle for bringing an appropriate
process for appropriations bills. The other is that this is an attempt
at fiscal responsibility, or at least a small step.
I think it is important to appreciate what the original intent of the
health insurance bill that was passed 10 years ago was, because we will
not likely get that opportunity when that time arises later this week.
The original attempt was to cover children who do not have health
insurance between the level of income in their family from Medicaid to
a low-income state, considered to be, in 1997, 200 percent of the
poverty level. That is a noble purpose. It is a noble purpose to
provide assistance for families who are unable to provide health
insurance for their children.
That legislation expires at the end of September. So we have a lot of
time in order to be able to have an appropriate discussion and talk
about what the changes ought to be as we move towards reauthorization.
All of us believe that those children at the lower end of the economic
scale ought to be able to have access to the finest health insurance.
But the process, as my good friend from Tennessee mentioned, has been
so remarkably flawed that that likely isn't going to be the case. In
fact, we were given a bill late last week that was almost a ream of
paper, 450-odd pages, that frankly doesn't include all that the
majority plans to put into it because they haven't figured out how they
are going to pay for it.
But what they do know, they are going to cut Medicare to over $100
billion. Over $100 billion they are going to cut Medicare, which is why
this bill is so important, because we have to figure out how we are
going to pay for that. I know on this side of the aisle we are
interested in being responsible in our spending and making certain we
are able to cover programs.
On the other side of the aisle, Mr. Chairman, it appears their desire
is to raise taxes in order to pay for programs. In this instance,
though, they are going to do what they alleged 10 years ago they ought
not do, and that is to cut Medicare, cut Medicare to a huge degree so
that literally millions of seniors across this Nation will see their
Medicare program cut.
In addition to that, there is a reported proposal on the other side
that will increase taxes on every single American who has a health
insurance policy. There will be a fee. They won't call it a tax; they
will call it a fee to increase revenue to the Federal Government on
every single American that has a health insurance policy.
Mr. Chairman, I don't know about you, but in my district, that is
what we call a tax. In my district we don't believe that new programs
ought to be put in place and charged with new taxes. We believe that
the Federal Government ought to spend wisely.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Motion to Rise Offered by Mr. Price of Georgia
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now
rise.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion to rise.
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and
pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN. Evidently a quorum is not present.
Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, the Chair will reduce to a
minimum of 5 minutes the time within which a vote by electronic device,
if ordered, will be taken on the pending question following the quorum
call.
Members will record their presence by electronic device.
The call was taken by electronic device.
[Roll No. 775]
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Boehner
Bonner
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Carter
Castle
Castor
Chabot
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
[[Page H9254]]
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Faleomavaega
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jindal
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Jordan
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Norton
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickering
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sali
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stearns
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wexler
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
{time} 1658
The CHAIRMAN. Three hundred eighty-nine Members recording their
presence by electronic device, a quorum is present, and the Committee
will resume its business.
=========================== NOTE ===========================
July 31, 2007 On Page H9254 the following appeared: The
CHAIRMAN. Three hundred eighty-nine Members recording their
presence by electronic device, a quorum is present, and the
Committee will resume its business. The question is on the motion
to rise. The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that
the noes appeared to have it. RECORDED VOTE Mr. PRICE of Georgia.
Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote. A recorded vote was
ordered.
The online version should be corrected to read: The CHAIRMAN.
Three hundred eighty-nine Members recording their presence by
electronic device, a quorum is present, and the Committee will
resume its business. RECORDED VOTE Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr.
Chairman, I demand a recorded vote. A recorded vote was ordered.
========================= END NOTE =========================
Recorded Vote
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 172,
noes 231, not voting 34, as follows:
[Roll No. 776]
AYES--172
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
Fallin
Feeney
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
LaTourette
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mitchell
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pickering
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--231
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Calvert
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Castor
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Faleomavaega
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Frank (MA)
Gallegly
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hunter
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jindal
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kingston
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Towns
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--34
Aderholt
Baird
Bono
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Cannon
Carson
Christensen
Clarke
Davis (IL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Delahunt
English (PA)
Fortuno
Fossella
Gohmert
Inslee
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, Sam
Mack
McHugh
Murphy, Patrick
Paul
Peterson (PA)
Pitts
Ramstad
Rangel
Royce
Sanchez, Loretta
Tancredo
Tierney
Udall (CO)
Whitfield
Wicker
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. LINDER (during the vote). Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. LINDER. Is this a 5-minute vote that occurred because of a
unanimous consent request?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will restate his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. LINDER. First of all, is this a 5-minute vote?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. LINDER. Is it the result of a unanimous consent request?
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, this is a 5-minute
vote.
[[Page H9255]]
Mr. LINDER. It is my understanding that any intervening business
requires a 15-minute vote on the following vote under the rules of the
House, and there was intervening business.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will repeat that pursuant to clause 6(b)(3)
of rule XVIII, this is a 5-minute vote.
Voting will proceed.
{time} 1708
So the motion to rise was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, in 1997, a Republican-led Congress passed
the State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP, a program that
combines the best of public and private approaches to delivering vital
health care coverage to low-income children across the country.
Today this program provides coverage to 6.6 million children and has
lowered the insurance rate by nearly 25 percent. Unfortunately, our
colleagues on the other side of the aisle decided not to include us in
crafting the reauthorization of SCHIP. In addition, it included many
other provisions affecting Medicare, without any input from the
minority.
The legislation put forth by the Democrats has many problems, and I
have serious reservations on how they propose to fund this legislation.
Specifically, there are proposed funding streams in the bill passed out
of the Ways and Means Committee that seek to take money out of end-
stage renal disease programs by establishing policies that are
shortsighted and ill-advised.
As currently structured, this proposal takes funding from among the
sickest patients in the Medicare program, those who have end-stage
renal disease, and reallocates it to a massive SCHIP expansion. As a
member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, I was pleased to learn
that Chairman Dingell was prepared to offer an amended version of the
CHAMP Act that did not include any end-stage renal disease cuts, and,
as indicated by CBO score sheets of Chairman Dingell's amendment, that
do not include entries for any end-stage renal disease provisions.
It was unfortunate that the bill was discharged from the Energy and
Commerce before amendments could be offered to strike these cuts, but I
wholeheartedly agree that we should not be making cuts to end-stage
renal disease, which treats some of the sickest patients in Medicare,
to fund SCHIP expansion.
As the CHAMP Act currently stands, my concerns with end-stage renal
disease are twofold. First, the bill proposes to disrupt the market-
based average sales price reimbursement system that Congress worked
hard to pass in the Medicare Modernization Act. This average sales
price payment system was first implemented in the physician setting in
2005 and the end-stage renal disease setting for all drugs in 2006.
This system has been a great success across the board, and moving to
reimbursement rates of ASP plus 6 percent has demonstrated significant
savings. In fact, the Office of Inspector General estimated annual
savings of $1 billion because of the shift from the old average
wholesale price system to the ASP system in 2005.
Starting in 2006, the average sales price system includes drugs used
to treat anemia in end-stage renal disease patients, as well as all
other end-stage renal disease drugs. MedPACs have noted a decline in
end-stage renal disease drug spending since the implementation of the
average sales price, and when looking at erythropoietin stimulant
agents, which are biologics used to treat anemia in end-stage renal
disease, specifically it is clear that the ASP has resulted in a
reduction in the price of Medicare, which had previously paid for these
biologics going from $10 under a statutory rate in 1994 to 2004.
Point of Order
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Isn't it true that the gentleman in the well
should be addressing the underlying bill, and it's a violation of the
rules if the remarks in the well do not address the underlying bill?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct. The gentleman speaking who
has the time must confine his remarks to the pending question.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. SHIMKUS. If there are cuts in one bill based upon increased
spending in another, is that financial connection enough to continue to
proceed?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman must maintain an ongoing nexus between
the pending question and any broader policy issues.
The gentleman may proceed.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Starting in 2006, the average sales price system
included drugs used to treat anemia and end-stage renal disease
patients as well as other end-stage renal disease drugs.
Additionally, there are provisions in the bill that propose to
institute a statutory price control rate. It would be a mistake to
change a system that has reduced prices for this medicine by 6.8
percent since the average sales price-based reimbursement system was
implemented in January of 2006; 9 percent compared to what Medicare
paid for the drug back in 1994 under a statutory price control rate.
This market-based system is working to drive down prices for Medicare
in Congress, and Congress shouldn't try to fix something that's not
broken. Most importantly, I also question how a cut in payment would
affect patient care. A payment cut may create financial incentives to
reduce or ration clinically beneficial drugs.
Dialysis providers may reduce their costs by providing fewer services
and drugs, transferring patients to another setting of care, or
discharging patients more quickly.
Mr. Chairman, in 1997 a Republican-led Congress passed the State
Children's Heath Insurance Program (SCHIP)--a progam that combines the
best of public and private approaches to delivering vital health
coverage to low-income children across this country.
Today this program provides coverage to 6.6 million children and has
lowered the uninsured rate by nearly 25 percent.
Unfortunately, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle decided
not to include us in crafting the reauthorization of SCHIP and in
addition, included many other provisions affecting Medicare without any
input from the minority.
The legislation put forth by the Democrats has many problems, and I
have serious reservations on how they propose to fund this legislation.
Specifically, there are proposed funding streams in the bill passed
out of the Ways and Means Committee that seeks to take money out of the
End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) program by establishing policies that
are shortsighted and ill-advised.
As currently structured, this proposal takes funding from among the
sickest patients in the Medicare program, those that have ESRD, and
reallocates it to a massive SCHIP expansion.
As a member of the Energy & Commerce Committee, I was pleased to
learn that Chairman Dingell was prepared to offer an amended version of
the CHAMP Act that did not include any ESRD cuts as indicated by CBO
score sheets of Chairman Dingell's amendment that do not include
entries for any ESRD provisions.
It was unfortunate that the bill was discharged from Energy and
Commerce before amendments could be offered to strike these ESRD cuts,
but I wholeheartedly agree that we should not be making cuts to the
ESRD, which treats some of the sickest patients in Medicare, to fund
SCHIP expansion.
As the CHAMP Act currently stands, my concerns with the ESRD
provisions are two-fold.
First, the bill proposes to disrupt the market based Average Sales
Price (ASP) reimbursement system that Congress worked hard to pass in
the Medicare Modernization Act (MMA).
This ASP payment system was first implemented in the physician
setting in 2005, and the ESRD setting for all drugs in 2006.
This system has been a great success across the board and moving to
reimbursement rates at ASP+6 percent has demonstrated significant
savings.
In fact, the Office of the Inspector General estimated annual savings
of $1 billion because of the shift from the old Average Wholesale Price
(AWP) system to the ASP system in 2005.
Starting in 2006, the ASP system included drugs used to treat anemia
in ESRD patients, as well as all other ESRD drugs.
[[Page H9256]]
MedPAC has noted a decline in ESRD drug spending since the
implementation of ASP and when looking at Erythropoeitin Stimulating
Agents (ESAs), which are biologics used to treat anemia, in ESRD
specifically, it is clear that ASP has resulted in a reduction in the
price Medicare had previously paid for these biologics--going from $10
under a statutory rate from 1994-2004 to $9.10 today for one of these
ESAs--EPOGEN. This is a 9 percent drop which represents real savings.
Additionally, there are provisions in the bill that propose to
institute a statutory price controlled rate that would distort the
market and ASP system by establishing a cap which restricts Medicare
payment at a statutory rate of $8.75 or ASP+2 percent, whichever is
less.
It would be a mistake to change a system that has reduced prices for
this medicine by 6.8 percent since the ASP-based reimbursement system
was implemented in January 2006 and by 9 percent compared to what
Medicare paid for the drug back in 1994 under a statutory price
controlled rate.
This market-based system is working now to drive down prices for
Medicare and Congress shouldn't try to fix something if it's not
broken.
Most importantly, I also question how a cut in payment would affect I
patient care. A payment cut may create financial incentives to reduce
or ration clinically beneficial drugs.
Dialysis providers may reduce their costs by providing fewer services
and drugs, transferring patients to another setting of care, or
discharging patients more quickly.
So when we are looking for ways to save money, a reduction in
reimbursement levels could actually result in unintended consequences,
such as increasing the number of ESRD patients who are hospitalized.
Published studies show that patients who are under dialyzed or who
are suffering from anemia are more likely to be hospitalized.
Increases in hospitalization due to dialysis payment changes could
end up being very costly to Medicare and taxpayers.
This is just bad policy rationale.
I am also concerned with a provision that would move to a fully
bundled dialysis composite rate--that is bundling drugs and other
separately billable services into a composite rate--for large dialysis
providers beginning in 2010, and for all other dialysis providers by
2013.
Since passage of the MMA in 2003, CMS has tried to design and test a
fully bundled payment system and has been unsuccessful.
I believe that CMS must be given more time to study this issue and
complete the bundling demonstration authorized in the MMA that it has
been working to implement to ensure that all of the complex factors
that go into a bundled payment are accounted for and that patient care
and access are not harmed under a bundled payment system.
Again, bundling may create financial incentives to reduce or ration
care resulting in worse health outcomes.
An insufficient Medicare payment could cause facilities to close
their doors or result in poor patient outcomes.
This underscores the need to test a bundled payment through a
demonstration first before implementing.
Congress and CMS should be fully informed on how to protect patient
access and quality before implementing bundling system-wide.
Although I am committed to the reauthorization of SCHIP I cannot
support these types of cuts to Medicare.
I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the Democrats' SCHIP
expansion in its current form.
{time} 1715
Point of Order
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to renew the point of order of the
previous point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman stating a point of order that the
gentleman is not confining his remarks to the pending question?
Mr. WEINER. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct. The gentleman controlling the
time must confine his remarks to the pending question. There must be an
ongoing nexus between the pending question and any broader policy
issues addressed by the gentleman controlling the time.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, a point of parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Does the gentleman yield?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will suspend. The gentleman from Illinois
controls the time.
Mr. SHIMKUS. If the gentleman from Illinois controls the time, I
yield to my colleague from Georgia.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I appreciate my friend yielding.
Isn't it true that the reason you are concerned about this bill is
because of the amount of spending in this bill puts in jeopardy health
care for our seniors?
Mr. SHIMKUS. Especially in this debate, the end stage renal disease
aspect; and that is the nexus.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, point of parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
Does the gentleman seek to make a parliamentary inquiry?
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, just for future reference. Under the rules,
Members who fail to oblige and follow rulings of the order of the
Chair, what is the sanction against them if they fail to do so?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman who controlled the time did properly
confine his remarks.
Mr. WEINER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, the underlying amendment of the Agriculture
appropriations bill, the amendment that is on the floor, strikes
$50,050 from the Office of the Secretary of Agriculture, $50,050. We
have now on this side accepted the amendment. The other side has used
over 1 hour of procedural delay, which essentially has spent that
$50,000 on the operation of the Capitol with no savings to the
taxpayer; and I think that these people who get up and talk about
fiscal responsibility ought to learn a little bit of oratorical
responsibility.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. HINCHEY. I yield my time to Mr. Obey.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from California pointed out,
we have now probably expended in terms of salaries for the clerks, the
cost of air conditioning for the Chamber, the cost of lights for the
Chamber, we have probably now expended more money than would be saved
by this $50,000 amendment; and so what I think this amendment is about
is something very different than in fact we are hearing from our
friends.
What I think this is about is that, last year, if you take a look at
the appropriation bills that have been considered so far this year,
last year, approximately 86 hours were spent debating those bills. This
year, we have had about 152 hours expended debating the same bills. Why
is that?
Last year, there were 144 amendments offered by those on this side of
the aisle then in the minority. This year, the now minority has offered
339 amendments. So it is obvious to me what is going on.
I don't think this debate is at all about either fiscal
responsibility or the fact that the amendment purports to save $50,000.
This is simply a device which allows the sponsors and the supporters to
tie up the time of the House and eventually deny this House the ability
to get its work done before it leaves for the August recess. That is
what this is about. And all of the rhetoric to the contrary
notwithstanding, I think every Member of the House knows that is what
it is about.
From the beginning, it has been apparent that there are a small
number of Members on the other side of the aisle who would prefer to
engage in filibuster by amendment, no matter what that means in terms
of the quality of the debate, no matter what that means in terms of the
inconvenience to Members, and no matter what that means in terms of the
ability of this House to finish its business in a timely fashion.
So let me simply say we will hear a lot of rhetoric tonight about
fiscal responsibility. Keep in mind what the real debate is, and we
will give all of that rhetoric the attention that it deserves, which is
very little.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
amendment offered by mr. mc henry to the amendment offered by mr.
gingrey
Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I offer a second-degree amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. McHenry to the amendment offered
by Mr. Gingrey:
Strike ``$50,500'' and insert ``$100,100''.
Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is pretty simple. As the
previous speaker said, the debate that we have had ongoing here on the
House
[[Page H9257]]
floor may cost taxpayer dollars. If we are going to have a debate about
cutting spending, I am going to offer a second-degree to make sure the
spending is a greater number to save the taxpayers more money so we can
continue to have this debate.
I appreciate the applause from one Member on the other side of the
aisle. Two Members. So we have two members of the Democrat Caucus who
wish to cut spending. Thank you both. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank
them both.
At this point, I yield to my colleague, the ranking member of the
Budget Committee, Mr. Ryan from Wisconsin.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I appreciate the applause.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is important that we do everything we can to
save money in light of the fact that we are creating a massive new
entitlement program later this week with this bill that is coming to
the floor. I think it is important that we show leadership at every
facet of the Federal government. That is why this amendment, which now
I believe saves $100,000 from the USDA Administrative Account Budget,
is worth supporting, simply because of the fact that the new SCHIP bill
opens a whole new open-ended entitlement.
In the past, SCHIP has always been a program that was capped, that
had an authorization. Now we have a program that has no income limits,
that requires people to actually self-certify. If they say they are
eligible, they are eligible. Anybody can get it. Warren Buffett's child
could get SCHIP.
More important to the fact is this, Mr. Chairman. The reason that it
is important to save $100,000 from the USDA budget is it is going to
cost a lot of money when this SCHIP bill passes and it pushes people
out of private health insurance onto government health insurance. That
is precisely what this will do.
Eighty-nine percent of the children in families with incomes between
300 percent and 400 percent of poverty and 95 percent of families above
400 percent of poverty have private health insurance. What this bill
will do is push those children out of the private health insurance that
their parents and their employers are paying for and make taxpayers pay
for that health insurance. This is an enormous, enormous expansion of
our government program, which takes choice away from patients on health
insurance and makes them take this government one-size-fits-all,
bureaucratic-driven health care. And that is why we need to support
removing $100,000 from the administrative budget from the USDA, because
we have a long ways to go to save the money to pay for this bill.
This bill, as it left the Ways and Means Committee, was $76 billion
over the budget in that it violated the majority's PAYGO by $76
billion. The bill that was brought to the Energy and Commerce Committee
that wasn't reported out was $91 billion PAYGO noncompliant.
Why is this, Mr. Chairman? Well, another reason why I think we need
to save money by cutting $100,000 from the USDA's administrative budget
is that they cut Medicare. Not just a little bit, but deeply. They raid
the Medicare trust fund, and they cut and eviscerate the Medicare
Advantage program.
Mr. Chairman, I bet every one of us has done a town hall meeting
whereby we have heard constituents when we are talking about Medicare
say: You know what? You people in Congress ought to give us the same
health insurance that you have.
Mr. Chairman, that is exactly what Medicare Advantage is. Just like
we as Members of Congress have, just like we in the Federal employment
health benefit, we have the ability to choose among providers who are
competing against each other for our benefit. We get to choose among
providers. We have choice. That is exactly what we are giving to
Medicare beneficiaries with the Medicare Advantage program.
These plans compete against each other for the beneficiary's
business, and each Medicare beneficiary gets to choose traditional
Medicare or Medicare Advantage plan, and that active choice has driven
down prices and has driven up quality and customer satisfaction.
The bill coming to the floor this week will cut 3 million people off
the Medicare Advantage program. It will say to all those people who
chose to have this plan that gives them comprehensive Medicare
coverage: No, you have to have the one-size-fits-all government
monopoly plan. You can't have this choice that looks like what Members
of Congress have.
That is why we need to cut $100,000 from the USDA budget, because all
these deep Medicare cuts to pay for a massive expansion of a new
entitlement program at a time when all these other programs are going
bankrupt is a step in the wrong direction. That is why I urge adoption
the gentleman's second-degree amendment, and I thank him for yielding
me time.
Mr. McHENRY. Reclaiming my time. I think it is also important to note
that the SCHIP bill the gentleman speaks of raises taxes on tobacco,
raises taxes on all health care plans in American, and I think
important for us to talk about that later on this week.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. I would just like to say what I stated earlier: That in
fact what we did in the subcommittee is to cut the central office at
the Agriculture Department by 16 percent. If that is not good enough
for you, I accept this amendment. You have an opportunity to withdraw
it, if you would like, but I am happy to accept it. Or you can sit and
you can stand and you can continue just running your mouth here on the
issue of the amendment. I have accepted it the second time around.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, a little while earlier when my amendment
was introduced to cut the Office of the Secretary of Agriculture by 1
percent, $50,000, the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations
Committee stood up and said, well, that is nothing. That is just pocket
change, and it is a dilatory motion. It is meaningless. It is so
insignificant in the big scope of things when we are talking about an
$18 billion discretionary spending bill on the Agriculture
appropriations bill that we are dealing with.
Well, I thank now my colleague from North Carolina for doubling that
1 percent cut to a 2 percent cut. So now I say to my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle, we are not talking about $50,000, we are
talking about $100,000. And the chairman of the overall committee, Mr.
Obey, is absolutely right. It is a small amount. But he is also right.
I have several other amendments. He might call those pocket change as
well and dilatory amendments. But the first thing you know when you add
those up, Mr. Chairman, you are going to get to over $1 million.
Now, on the floor of the House in this body inside the Beltway that
may not be much money, but to the folks back in the 11th District of
Georgia that I represent it becomes some significant money.
But, again, the chairman is right. We are trying to make a point
here. And I hope not just our colleagues in the Chamber are listening,
and I know they are, but I hope the American people are listening as
well. Because we do want to make a point, and that is what we are doing
with Mr. McHenry's amendment to double the cut to 2 percent on this
small section, that is what we are doing in my base amendment with the
1 percent cut. We are saying, look, if you want to bring forth a bill,
as you intend to do later this week, the so-called CHAMP Act, to
massively increase spending that violates your own new PAYGO rules by
$70 billion, as the ranking member of the Budget Committee just pointed
out; then if you want to find the money to have these massive
expansions, then you need to look at every other spending bill and set
your priorities straight.
{time} 1730
And let's say we're going to cut the money instead of doing it on the
backs of our seniors. And that's why I say, you need a new acronym for
this bill. It's not the CHAMP Act, Children's Health and Medicare
Protection Act. No, it's the CHUMP Act, Children's Health Unfunds
Medicare Protection,
[[Page H9258]]
and for our neediest seniors. And that's why we're here; absolutely,
that's why we're here. We don't want you to do that. We don't want you
to hurt the seniors, the 3.5 million, a part of the 8 million that get
their Medicare through that Advantage option, because most of those
seniors, Mr. Chairman, most of those seniors are our poorest seniors.
They're in that category of income from $10,000 to $20,000. And those
are the people who you are pushing off the Medicare program of choice,
their program of choice.
So anywhere we can find cuts, this amendment, the second-degree
amendment, further amendments that we're going to offer, that's what we
ought to do if we're going to have this massive increase in spending,
which our side of the aisle feels like we should not do.
Now, we could go home in August, Mr. Chairman, and say, on Thursday
or Friday of this last week that we were in session, before the long
break, the Democrats have destroyed Medicare for 3.5 million low-income
seniors, and they've said they've done it in the interest of providing
health care for children. But which children are we talking about?
In their bill that's coming to the floor, with a closed rule, that we
won't have an opportunity to amend, they want to cover children up to
400, maybe even more, the sky is the limit, 400 percent of the Federal
poverty level, $82,000 a year for a family of four or maybe it's 500
percent or 600 percent. So what happens? Ninety percent of these
children already have private health insurance. And so that's why we're
here, and I support the second-degree amendment of the gentleman from
North Carolina.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I too join in supporting
this amendment, and the gentleman from North Carolina for doing it, for
saving so much money for the American taxpayer.
Just prior to this we heard the chairman from the other side of the
aisle, in essence, asking us in some ways to trample on our free speech
rights in this House. And you know, when you do that, when you ask that
we not speak on important issues here in this House for hours, for a
period of time, and the other side of the aisle always points out that
we're spending more time this year than we did in the past years trying
to debate these issues. And I think the American public, quite honestly
appreciates that, whether it's 86 hours or 186 hours. I think the
American public looks to Congress to make sure that we spend their
money appropriately, and looks for us to debate those issues
appropriately as well.
We, each Member of Congress, as we stand here, represents a little
over 600,000 individuals, men, women and children, across this country
in our respective districts. When we come to this floor and speak on
this floor, we are representing their voices. We bring their voices
from New Jersey to this floor.
And so when the other side of the aisle says, oh, you go on too long
over there in the minority, well they're saying that really to my
constituents. They are complaining that my constituents' voice should
be silenced. And I come to the floor right now and say, no, sir, my
constituents voices will not be silenced. I will speak out when I can,
where I can on behalf of the constituents of the Fifth District and the
State of New Jersey as well.
Now, I know that we're looking at a bill here with $18.6 billion.
Right now we're looking at an amendment for $100,000. To us, and my
constituents, that's a lot of money. And if it takes us an hour or two
hours to debate this one amendment, to get consensus to save $100,000,
well, that's a lot of money to my constituents, and they would say that
hour or two hours of debate is well worth it.
Now, maybe the other side of the aisle will disagree with me. Maybe
the other side of the aisle doesn't care whether we spend 50,000,
100,000 of our hard-earned tax dollars. And maybe they will accept the
amendment as they did in the past, and if they do so, the $100,000
amendment, we appreciate that.
But you know, in that regard, this really is a bipartisan effort
then. It is really two parties coming together to solve a problem. The
one party, the majority party, comes to this floor, raises our taxes,
increases our spending.
The minority party, the Republicans, equally come to the floor, and
we reach out our hand and work together. While the Democrats raise our
taxes and raise the spending, we reach out a hand and say how about
trying to bring that spending down just a little bit by $100,000, and
by bipartisan effort we're able to get that down. So this is a
bipartisan day, and I hope that we will see other amendments to
increase that bipartisanship as well, as we try to rein in the spending
that the other side has brought us.
And when we talk about what the other side has brought us, and one of
the reasons why we need to save this $100,000, just think of what we've
gone through in the last few months already and just recently in the
last couple weeks. We have seen taxpayers on the American taxpayers go
up by over $400 billion in one of the first bills that House passed
under the majority party of their budget.
We have seen just recently them raising taxes again through the farm
bill. And now with this underlying bill that we'll be looking at in a
little bit on the SCHIP bill, another $60 billion in taxes.
And let me add just one more tax increase that maybe Members of both
sides of the aisle may be forgetting about. Just a few hours ago, as I
look at the clock, I came out of Financial Services Committee, where
we, or the majority party, added the last piece to the puzzle with
regard to another tax increase on the American public, and that's the
MTI. That's the mortgage tax increase. That's a tax increase on every
family in America who needs to go out and get a mortgage to buy their
first home or their second or an additional home as they move into it.
Every family in America who will want to get out a mortgage in the
future will now have to pay an MTI, a mortgage tax increase, thanks to
the majority party in the legislation that is just finally put in
place. So whether it is an increase in the budget taxes or the farm
bill or the SCHIP or now an MTI as far as a tax increase as well, we're
working with the other side of the aisle. As they raise taxes on the
American family, we work with them here and there, to bring down the
spending to a level that our taxpayers in our districts are able to
abide by.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words in support of the McHenry amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to rise in support of the
McHenry amendment. And I want to compliment the subcommittee
chairwoman, Ms. DeLauro, for her openness and bipartisanship in
preparing the ag appropriation bill and working with Ranking Member
Kingston.
I asked Mr. Kingston, I said, have y'all held hearings on the bill?
He said, yes, we held lots of hearings. I said, did you prepare a draft
that was circulated in a timely fashion? He said, yes, we prepared a
draft, circulated in a timely fashion. I said, was there an open markup
where Members could offer amendments on both sides of the aisle? And he
said, yes, there was an open markup. So I want to compliment you.
Now, I want to contrast that to the SCHIP bill. We've had one hearing
in the Energy and Commerce Committee in which SCHIP was the focus of
Mr. Pallone's subcommittee. The bill came over the transom last Tuesday
night at 11:36 p.m. The markup was scheduled, I believe, at 10 a.m. the
next morning. Chairman Dingell did delay that until 4 o'clock the next
afternoon, and then again delayed the actual markup after opening
statements a little bit further.
We didn't have any witnesses testify. We didn't have any open
process. We didn't have a circulation of a draft. We got a 465-page
bill at 11:36 last Tuesday evening. So that's, I mean, I'm in awe of
Ms. DeLauro and the way she's operated her subcommittee, and Mr. Obey
and the way he's operating the full appropriations committee, actually
using the process. We're not doing that in the Energy and Commerce
Committee or the Ways and Means Committee on the SCHIP bill.
[[Page H9259]]
Now, I'm told, I don't know this for a fact.
Mr. OBEY. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Sure, I'll yield.
Mr. OBEY. The gentleman has complimented me for the way we have
handled appropriations bills.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. And that's a sincere compliment.
Mr. OBEY. I appreciate the compliment. But let me suggest that I
would appreciate it, if we have conducted ourselves the way the
gentleman thinks we should, then I would appreciate that he would not
visit his frustrations on other legislation on the appropriations
process when we have produced bills in what you readily admit is the
correct fashion. If you have an argument in your own bailiwick, it
would be nice if you kept it there so that the House might get its work
done.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I appreciate that gentleman's comment. But my
response to the distinguished chairman of the full Appropriations
Committee is, you've got to pick up your buckets where you stand. And
this is our only forum.
I'm told that the Rules Committee is going to meet at midnight or 1
a.m. this morning to consider a same-day rule for SCHIP. Now, keep in
mind, last Tuesday night at 11:36 p.m., after the House is through with
its last vote of the day, we get a 465-page SCHIP bill that hasn't had
any hearings on it, that hasn't had any witnesses on, that hasn't had a
draft circulated. And now the Rules Committee is going to meet at
midnight allegedly, or 1 o'clock this morning, to consider a same-day
rule to consider that bill tomorrow.
So I respect Mr. Obey and I respect Subcommittee Chairman DeLauro for
doing the process the right way. But our only recourse, unfortunately,
under the rules is to come out on this floor under the open rule to
strike the requisite number of words to speak on the ag appropriation
bill and then talk about the travesty that may be hoisted on the
American public tomorrow in which a $227 billion cut in Medicare over
the next 10 years is going to be voted on, with not one witness
testifying in favor or opposition, not one draft that's been
circulated, not any process at all.
So I support the McHenry amendment, and I also support an open
process on the largest health care issue that's going to be before this
Congress this year.
We should not have the Rules Committee vote tonight at midnight to
bring a same-day rule. We ought to send the SCHIP bills back to the
committee, have a normal process, and then bring them to the floor
later this fall where we could have an open debate in the full House.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. CULBERSON. I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I also rise in support of Mr. McHenry's
amendment, but I also want to thank my ranking member, the subcommittee
chairman here. I serve on the Appropriations Committee, and Chairman
Obey is correct: the committee has done a good job of making sure we
had bills in front of us and opportunity for debate.
But I also want to reiterate Mr. Barton's point. He is absolutely
right. The reason we're out here today and having this discussion is
because we, each one of us, as Members of Congress have really a
fiduciary, very deep and profound fiduciary responsibility to be good
stewards of the taxpayers' dollars. And we're here debating an
appropriations bill on how to spend those tax dollars. And the
Agriculture Department has, an important part of its role is the
taking, they have a role directly, for example, in the Texas Medical
Center. And the nexus to this debate, Mr. Chairman, that I would
certainly point out is, under this bill, the Department of Agriculture,
for example, helps maintain the children's nutrition program at the
Baylor College of Medicine, which I'm proud to represent.
The Agriculture Department, a key part of their responsibility is
children's health. And it is highly relevant to talk about this
Children's Health Insurance Program that the Democrat majority is
attempting to shove through this Congress with very little debate, very
little sunlight, which is always a dangerous sign. If they won't let
you read the bill and they won't let you talk about it, it is sure
going to contain serious problems. And I for one am deeply concerned
about the tremendous expansion this bill proposes. The bill will, it is
clear from what we have seen, take seniors off of Medicare and allow
States to put illegal aliens on Medicare. The bill has no reasonable
limits. The bill has no enforceable limits on age. The bill has no
enforceable limits on income requirements. And the bill is also silent
as to whether or not States can include illegal aliens in coverage. The
bill will allow States to provide Medicare coverage at Federal
taxpayers' expense to anyone the State chooses to cover.
Now, imagine what that means in the State of California where the
Governor has already advocated and the legislature has advocated
providing health care coverage to illegal aliens. And I say that in the
context, ladies and gentlemen, of the fact that all of us need to
remember, every bill, every dollar we spend, that the Government
Accountability Office has already calculated that in order to pay for
the obligations of the Federal Government today, my overriding concern
is that, in order to pay for the existing obligations of the Federal
Government, the GAO has calculated, Mr. Farr, that each American would
have to buy $155,000 worth of Treasury bills. That's how massive the
existing obligations of the Federal Government are.
{time} 1745
The existing obligations of the Federal Government are so massive
that every living American would have to purchase $155,000 worth of
Treasury bills, and that wouldn't even touch the national debt. That
wouldn't even touch the interest on the national debt. And yet the
Democrat majority has attempted to jam through a bill here that we
don't even really know the ultimate cost.
Mr. Barton estimates that if the States expand coverage as far as
they could to pick up illegal aliens and people of any age group or
income group, but if Mr. Barton is correct, and I think it is
reasonable that there is no real way to calculate how much this bill
costs, we are adding a monstrous and inexcusable financial debt on the
back backs of our children.
You are taking away Medicare coverage from seniors and allowing
States to give it to illegal aliens. This is outrageous, it is
unacceptable, it is unaffordable, and you are going to break the back
of the taxpayers of this country.
And I, for one, will stand at this microphone and all of us have an
obligation to stand up here like Horatio at the gates of Rome. If this
is the only place that I can stand and fight, I will stand and fight
here as long as it takes to protect the Treasury and the taxpayers of
this country from irresponsible, irresolute spendthrift practices of
the majority of this House, and I won't stand for it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise with considerable regret, and I
want to speak with affection and respect for my good friend and
colleague from Texas (Mr. Barton), the senior member of the Republicans
on the Committee on Energy and Commerce. He complained about the
process in the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
I would like the House and this committee to know that he was
afforded, first of all, every bit of notice that is required by the
rules of the House, that the proceedings which were conducted in that
committee were conducted in an eminently fair and proper way in full
accord with the rules and the proprieties of the House.
I would also like him to know that I am sure he can recall that we
sought his counsel as to how it was we could put something together
which, in fact, would give him a process which would enable us to
address the problem of SCHIP.
I would like to remind him and this committee that SCHIP is going to
expire on the 30th of September. That is an important date because at
which time we are going to find that all of
[[Page H9260]]
the kids, 6 million of them, who have coverage under SCHIP will lose
that coverage if something is not done by the Congress of the United
States. It is our purpose, given the fact that there will be a recess
in this body during the month of August, to see to it that we have this
measure ready for the floor in time that the business can be dealt with
and that we can handle the matter in a way which will take care of
these kids.
The legislation was made available to my good friend and to my
Republican colleagues on the committee as soon as it could be done
after the necessary discussions were held to try to frame a proper
piece of legislation and to address something that responsibility of a
fiscal and financial character requires, and that is to deal with the
pay-fors and how we will pay for the cost of this program. We have done
so, and we have arranged that the payments will be a little different
than the Senate bill, but they will be sensible.
First of all, we will require that the Medicare Advantage plans pay
their fair share but that they are not overpaid for the services which
they are providing. Some of the less fortunate are getting 11 percent
more than they are entitled to, some of the more fortunate are getting
19 percent more than they are entitled to, and some of the most
fortunate are getting 30 percent more than they are entitled to. It
seemed like good sense to put them in a position where they could
compete honestly with the other Medicare providers, and that is what we
have done. We also have a modest increase in the tobacco tax.
These are all issues which will be considered; and we offered my good
friend and my Republican colleagues a chance to amend, debate, and to
discuss this legislation.
I would note for the benefit of my good friend from Texas that the
rules do not require hearings and that on a number of occasions on
important legislation in prior Congresses during his chairmanship and
that of others of my very dear friends on the Republican side, the
situation was conducted in a way in which there were no hearings and
which legislation was brought directly to the committee and shot to the
House floor in considerable haste. We protested this, but I have to say
that, given the exigencies of the situation, the needs and the
circumstances and the fact that the kids are very liable to lose their
health care benefits and their insurance under SCHIP, we saw fit to
bring the matter up.
The House will, I hope and I think and I am informed, have this
measure before us in the next little bit. We will do so with a full
opportunity of everybody to debate it, to discuss where the money is
coming from, what the benefits will be, and whether or not the
legislation should be passed.
It is my personal feeling that we have a chance here to not only save
some 6 million kids who would lose all benefits, but under the
legislation which has come out of the Ways and Means Committee and
which was considered in the Committee on Energy and Commerce to cover
not 6 million but 11 million kids that desperately need this, which
will be important.
I conclude with an expression of affection for my friend and
colleague from Texas.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I spoke earlier on the second
degree amendment of Mr. McHenry. Am I allowed at this time to seek
recognition to speak on the original amendment of Mr. Gingrey?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is permitted to seek recognition to speak
on the original amendment.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Then, Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words on the Gingrey amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage my
distinguished chairman, the Honorable John Dingell of Michigan, in a
colloquy, with his permission.
Mr. DINGELL. I certainly am happy to do that with my dear friend, and
I express again my respect and affection for the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. We have the utmost respect for each other, and
that is sincere, and there is nothing artificial about that.
Mr. Chairman, is it not true that the bill that was marked up or
attempted to be marked up in your committee last week was given to the
minority at 11:36 p.m. last Tuesday evening?
Point of Order
Mr. OBEY. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin will state his point of
order.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thought that Members were required to be
addressing the matter at hand.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct. The Members who are
recognized should confine their remarks to the issue that is being
debated.
The gentleman from Texas may proceed.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I understand the rules, Mr. Chairman. I am going
to try to comply with the rules.
I support the Gingrey amendment just like I supported the McHenry
amendment. I also believe that we should use as close an approximation
of an open and fair process on the SCHIP reauthorization as we are
using on the pending appropriations process; and I am informed by my
staff that the SCHIP bill, which was 465 pages in length, was presented
to minority staff at 11:36 p.m. last Tuesday evening; and I would like
the distinguished chairman of the full Energy and Commerce Committee to
indicate to me if that is a true statement.
Mr. OBEY. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I am perfectly willing to hear the gentlemen
debate this matter when their bill is on the floor. But the last time I
looked, I thought an appropriations bill was on the floor; and, just
for the heck of it, I would like us to stick to the rules and consider
the matter before us. We have spent 2 hours on a nonsensical, symbolic
amendment that has very little relationship to the bill; and it seems
to me this House is getting considerably far afield.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin is correct. The gentleman
who sought the time must confine his remarks to the pending question.
The gentleman from Texas is recognized.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I understand the rules that we are
operating under, and I am totally supportive of Mr. Gingrey's amendment
on the Ag appropriations bill.
I listened with interest to my committee chairman, Mr. Dingell,
earlier when he rose to speak about the process in the Energy and
Commerce Committee. He didn't talk about the Gingrey amendment. He
didn't talk about anything dealing with the Ag appropriations. So I am
simply trying to get some information from him about what he spoke of,
and I think the rules of the Energy and Commerce Committee require a
36-hour advance notice, and we weren't given that 36-hour notice on
that bill.
Mr. OBEY. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas will suspend.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. And I think the chairman knows it.
Mr. OBEY. Point of order, Mr. Chairman. I am not under the impression
that the rules of the Energy and Commerce Committee are now before the
House. I am under the impression that the Agriculture appropriations
bill is before the House, and it would be nice if we could focus our
discussion on that.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin stated a point of order,
and he is correct. The gentleman from Texas, who has been recognized,
must confine his remarks to the pending question.
The gentleman from Texas is recognized.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I appreciate the chairman's courtesy.
Mr. Chairman, I think the majority is embarrassed to have the
question answered. I think the majority knows that we were not given
the bill within the 36-hour window. We weren't even given it within a
12-hour window.
Mr. OBEY. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
[[Page H9261]]
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin will state his point of
order.
Mr. OBEY. The gentleman is not discussing the matter at hand.
The CHAIRMAN. Once again, the gentleman from Wisconsin is correct.
The gentleman from Texas must confine his remarks to the pending
question.
The gentleman from Texas is recognized.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Well, I need an answer to this question, and I
am at a loss about how to get that answer.
I listened to my chairman explain his position. I would hope that we
could give him a chance to respond to a few simple questions about what
he just told the body.
So my question is, did we get the bill within 36 hours?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, point of order. The gentleman can raise any
question he wants with the gentleman from Michigan but not on an
appropriation bill.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin is correct. The gentleman
from Texas must confine his remarks to the pending question.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Is it within the rules of the bill that is under
consideration now to go back and ask that previous comments be read to
the body to see if they were germane to the pending question? Is that
within the rules?
The CHAIRMAN. That is not in order.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. That is not in order or it is in order?
The CHAIRMAN. A Member wishing to address the propriety of those
remarks must have been timely. The gentleman's present request would
not be timely.
The gentleman from Texas is recognized.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. How much time do I have left, Mr. Chairman?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would ask my distinguished
chairman, who is the dean of the House, who has served in this body
over 50 years, who will go down in its history as one of the most
effective Members of the entire 200-plus years of the Congress, if the
current process that we are apparently going to use on the SCHIP bill
once we get through the Agriculture appropriation bill----
Point of Order
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, point of order. This is not a matter
pertaining to the subject at hand.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. With all due respect, I think that does pertain
to the subject at hand.
{time} 1800
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin have a point of
order?
Mr. OBEY. Yes, I do. The gentleman is not addressing the matter at
hand. This is not the United States Senate where anything is possible.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct. The gentleman from Texas must
confine his remarks to the pending question.
The gentleman from Texas is recognized.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I would like to yield to my distinguished
chairman for any remarks he cares to make. How are the Tigers doing in
the American League? What are his plans for the August break? If we
can't talk about substantive issues because the majority is embarrassed
to hear the answer, maybe we can discuss something else.
Mr. OBEY. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. OBEY. Perhaps the gentleman can tell us what the name of the
Secretary of Agriculture is. That would at least get us close at hand
to the subject we are supposed to be debating.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Well, it's not David Obey.
I am going to yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman, out of
respect for the chairman's courtesies.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I do want to speak in favor of the
McHenry amendment. I think it is a vitally important amendment that we
debate on this House floor today. Maybe the dollar amount is modest;
the principle is huge. This is a body that spends too much of the
people's money, and it has repercussions. And no matter how intensely
our friends from the other side of the aisle want to prevent us from
painting a picture for the American people on where their spending is
leading, we feel compelled to speak out.
Mr. Chairman, already this body is spending over $23,000 per American
household. In real terms, it's one of the greatest amounts since World
War II. Every appropriations bill that has come to the floor,
practically every single one is spending more money than last year, way
beyond the rate of inflation and beyond the ability of the family
budget to pay for the excess in the Federal budget.
So, now we have an Agriculture appropriations bill which is almost 6
percent above last year. I assure you, the American people didn't get a
6 percent raise, those who are expected to pay for it. And beyond the 6
percent increase, the bill expands mandatory spending. Now, supposedly
PAYGO is supposed to apply to this, but it doesn't because we have a
PAYGO loophole. And this is a big, big loophole, Mr. Chairman. And we
need to pay attention to more mandatory spending. Because already,
simply with the government that we have today, before our friends on
the other side of the aisle add on a massive increase in an SCHIP
program that's going to be funded with tax increases and Medicare cuts,
before they do that, we're already on automatic pilot to double taxes
on the next generation. We're either going to double taxes on the next
generation or there is not going to be any Federal Government to speak
of, except Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. There will barely be
any funds for anything else.
And don't take my word for it, Madam Chair, take the word of the
Office of Management and Budget, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve,
the conservative Heritage Foundation, the liberal Brookings Institute.
So there is this train wreck coming on entitlement spending.
We have a modest amendment that would reduce a little bit of spending
in the Agriculture bill to take off that pressure, and instead the
amendment is simply mocked. Well, we can't do that because we know if
we don't pass this amendment, this modest amendment, to save money on
the Agriculture appropriations bill, we know what it's leading to on
SCHIP, a new permanent entitlement of almost $160 billion over 10
years. I mean, Madam Chair, this is unconscionable, unconscionable on
top of the burden that is already going to be placed upon future
taxpayers.
Now, we have so many Members who come to the floor and talk about,
well, we have to be here for the least of these. Well, Madam Chair, I
would posit that maybe the least of these are those who do not vote and
those who have yet to be born. And so that is why we need the amendment
passed by the gentleman from North Carolina to save this money, to take
pressure off of creating this new huge permanent entitlement in SCHIP.
We also need this amendment in this Ag bill to take the pressure off
this huge cut in Medicare that the Democrat majority is now planning,
as they seek to pit grandparents against their grandchildren in this
massive SCHIP tax-spend-debt spiral. I mean, they're going to increase
taxes, the tobacco taxes. I'm not a smoker. I used to be a volunteer in
the American Cancer Society, but last I looked, it's still a legal
activity. So taxes are going to fall on low- and moderate-income
Americans as they seek to take away private insurance from others and
put them onto a public insurance plan.
We're looking again at cutting Medicare Advantage plans, almost 20
percent of the people. We're going to have pressure to cut Medicare.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield for
a question?
Is the gentleman aware that we've accepted the amendment?
Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chair, do I control the time? If so, I have not
yielded to the gentleman from Illinois.
[[Page H9262]]
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mrs. Tauscher). The gentleman from Texas
controls the time.
Mr. HENSARLING. I would urge the adoption of this amendment so that
we can save some money here and prevent this massive raid on the
Medicare trust fund that is coming in in this SCHIP bill.
Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Madam Chairman, I have a parliamentary
inquiry.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Madam Chairman, is there a particular
parliamentary vehicle that, once an amendment has been accepted by the
majority, that the amendment can then be disposed of?
I don't know what the point is here. We've accepted the amendment.
It's been asked. It's been answered. We accept it. We want to add it to
the bill. We're prepared to move forward. We've accepted the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair will put the question on the amendment
after 5-minute debate has been exhausted.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I thank the Chair.
Mr. BOUSTANY. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Louisiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. BOUSTANY. Madam Chairman, I also rise in support of the McHenry
amendment. Clearly, we have to get some control over spending, and this
Agriculture bill is no exception to this.
As we look at this spending bill, as we've looked at the rest of
them, we're continuing to spend more money, and it's a recipe for
further tax increases. Furthermore, it's going to be at the expense of
seniors. Here we are, we're looking at an SCHIP bill which, in my
opinion, after looking at this to the extent I've been able to look at
it, appears to be very irresponsibly crafted. In fact, I believe it to
be a cruel hoax.
Point of Order
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Point of order, Madam Chairman.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Madam Chair, as I understand previous
rulings from the Chair, that the gentleman must confine his remarks to
the matter at hand, the Agriculture appropriations bill, and not the
SCHIP bill, which will come before the Congress later this week.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Louisiana must confine his
remarks to the pending question.
Mr. BOUSTANY. I thank the Chair.
As I was saying, this bill continues to spend far too much money, as
did all the previous appropriations bills we've voted upon, and it is
going to put further pressure on the work that we desperately need to
do.
Looking at what we're going to go forward with as we look at health
care, how are we going to pay for health care if we're putting all this
money into overspending in these other bills? We have to get our
priorities straight.
If we're going to raise cigarette taxes, a diminishing source of
revenue, to pay for a program that's expanding, and then we're also
going to take one-time money from Medicare Advantage to pay for an
expanded program, how is it that we're going to deal with our entire
Federal budget? Again, this bill before us today is a big part of the
problem.
Point of Order
Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Point of order.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Madam Chair, I have sat here and have counted
15 straight times that we have ruled on the central question of
germaneness. We are here to talk about the Agriculture appropriations.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman have a point of order?
Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. My point of order is, where is it in the rules
to which this total disrespect for the Chair and the rulings of the
Chair continues to be allowed? What is the point of having a rule?
Mr. GINGREY. Madam Chair, point of order.
Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. May I have my point of order responded to?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. As the Chair has already ruled, the gentleman
from Louisiana must confine his remarks to the pending question.
Mr. GINGREY. Madam Chairman, point of order.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia may state his point
of order.
Mr. GINGREY. Madam Chairman, is it not true that we are talking about
a spending bill----
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman stating a point of order or
parliamentary inquiry?
Mr. GINGREY. The point of order, Madam Chairman, is, if there is
spending and language in this bill that pertains to drugs, that
pertains to health care, that pertains to the FDA and drug
reimportation, then that makes this discussion of spending germane to
the overall bill.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair has already ruled.
The gentleman from Louisiana must maintain an ongoing nexus between
the pending question and any broader policy issues.
The gentleman from Louisiana may proceed.
Mr. FARR. Madam Chair, parliamentary inquiry.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Louisiana yield for a
parliamentary inquiry?
Mr. BOUSTANY. Madam Chair, reclaiming my time, I just want to say
that we're talking about an Agriculture bill, a spending bill, and
we're talking about money that is going to be spent. We're talking
about money that is going to be spent in this that will not be
available to spend on health care issues, particularly on a number of
issues affecting rural seniors.
Now, I have a rural district, it depends on agriculture, and as we go
forward, we're going to hurt these seniors in these rural communities.
If we cut over $200 billion in Medicare spending, I have 3,246 seniors
in the Seventh Congressional District who are currently enrolled in the
Medicare Advantage who are going to suffer. So I think we have to get
our priorities straight as we go forward.
Furthermore, as we look at payments for hospitals are being cut $2.7
billion; in-patient rehabilitative services, $6.6 billion in cuts;
payments for skilled nursing facilities, $6.5 billion in cuts; payments
for certain drugs, $1.9 billion; in-State renal disease, $3.6 billion.
These are seniors who are poor in my Seventh Congressional District,
and because of the spending in this Agriculture bill, they can't take
care of these problems.
Point of Order
Ms. DeLAURO. Point of order.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Connecticut will state her
point of order.
Ms. DeLAURO. It has been ruled over and over again on this floor that
the gentleman has to keep his remarks in the context of the bill, the
Agriculture appropriations bill that is being discussed.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Louisiana must confine his
remarks to the pending question.
Mr. BOUSTANY. I thank the Chairwoman.
Again, I state that I am supporting the McHenry amendment because I
think it's an important step forward as we get some control over
spending so we can set our priorities straight so we don't hurt rural
seniors.
I pointed out the numerous cuts that are going to be made to the
3,246 seniors in the Seventh Congressional District alone.
Madam Chair, when is the spending spree going to stop? When are we
going to get control over this spending so that we can set our
priorities straight?
Point of Order
Mr. ISRAEL. Madam Chair, point of order.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. ISRAEL. Madam Chair, we have been debating this amendment for 1
hour. We accepted this amendment within that 1 hour.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman have a point of order?
Mr. ISRAEL. Madam Chairman, how many times can our friends on the
other side of the aisle raise nongermane issues after the Chair has
ruled that they must confine their remarks to the underlying bill?
[[Page H9263]]
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair will respond to points of order as
they are made.
The gentleman from Louisiana will continue.
Mr. BOUSTANY. I thank the Chair.
Again, Agriculture spending is what we're talking about. But if we're
spending excessive money in this Ag appropriations bill, it's going to
hurt what we can do to take care of our seniors.
Again, 3,246 seniors in the Louisiana Seventh Congressional District
are going to be hurt by this situation. If we look at the SCHIP
situation that we're faced with, we're going to have problems with cuts
because we don't have money available because of the Agriculture bill.
Point of Order
Ms. DeLAURO. Point of order.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will suspend.
The gentlewoman from Connecticut.
Ms. DeLAURO. My colleague is supposed to keep his comments to the
business at hand before the Committee, not what business the House will
consider in the coming days; is that not true, Madam Chair?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman is correct. The Chair has ruled
that the gentleman from Louisiana must confine his remarks to the
pending question.
Mr. BOUSTANY. I thank the Chair.
Furthermore, as we go forward with a bill that is increasing spending
in Agriculture, I have seniors in my district who need motorized
wheelchairs, and they may be forced to wait a month or more.
{time} 1815
Again, because of the spending in this bill----
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Parliamentary inquiry, Madam Chairman.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman yield for a parliamentary
inquiry?
Mr. BOUSTANY. No.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Louisiana may continue.
Mr. BOUSTANY. Furthermore, with the spending in this bill, it is
going to reduce the amount of time that the government will rent oxygen
equipment for seniors to up to 36 months. This is going to be a problem
for my seniors. We have got to get control over this spending. The
first step here is with the McHenry amendment.
Furthermore, I think if we look at what has happened with agriculture
spending, typically, much of the money that has been spent on
agriculture doesn't even go to agriculture. It has gone to all kinds of
other pet programs.
Madam Chairman, we have to set our priorities straight here.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Chairman, I appreciate very much the recognition.
Madam Chairman, I think that the American people are probably getting
a pretty good lesson on the effectiveness, or lack of effectiveness, of
this Congress right now. Unfortunately for the institution, the lesson
is driving home the poll numbers that show how little regard the
American people have for the majority party right now. It is important
that we have the opportunity to debate every one of these bills and
that we have the opportunity to debate the amendments that are here.
I rise in support of the amendment that my colleague from North
Carolina has offered. I think, again, that it is important that we do
that. It is also important that we have the ability to tie the
amendments that are being offered to this agriculture bill to other
issues. The majority party may not want to do that. However, it is very
important that we do that, because these appropriations bills are all
tied together.
Last year, there was a great hue and cry from the majority party
about how much money was being spent by the Republicans, what
profligate spenders we were. Now that the Democrats are proposing
spending all this money, it is negligible. $10 million is negligible.
$5 million is negligible. It is insignificant. All kinds of words like
that are being used.
When we try to point out the connection between what is happening in
this bill and with the amendments that we are offering to things like
the SCHIP bill, then the majority party doesn't want us to do that.
Point of Order
Ms. DeLAURO. Point of order.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Connecticut will state her
point of order.
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chairman, the gentlewoman's remarks need to be
confined to the Agriculture appropriations bill. The amendment has been
accepted, in case the gentlewoman did not know that.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is correct. The
gentlewoman from North Carolina must confine her remarks to the pending
question.
The gentlewoman will proceed.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Parliamentary inquiry, Madam Chairman.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does the gentlewoman yield for a parliamentary
inquiry?
Ms. FOXX. Yes, I do.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Chairman, isn't it within the rules of the
House while debating a pending question to include references to
extraneous material?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from North Carolina must
maintain an ongoing nexus between the pending question and any broader
policy issues.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. But broader policy issues can be addressed.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. As long as the nexus is maintained.
The gentlewoman from North Carolina may continue.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Chairman, I thank my colleague for seeking the
clarification of this. I have been very confused about the majority
party not wanting us to talk about the entire budget. This is one piece
of an entire budget that this House is going to pass. I don't see how
you can possibly say there is no nexus.
Every spending bill in this Chamber is connected to every other
spending bill, so how can you possibly say that they are not the same?
You passed this huge budget with the largest tax increase in the
history of this country. The budget sets the spending. I cannot
understand why we can't talk about the budget and every other spending
bill that we are going to deal with in conjunction with this spending
bill, because they are all tied together.
I would also like to point out to you that I guess while you are
trying to speed us along you are raising all these points of order,
which is simply slowing down the process. I find that somewhat amusing,
too, as we are trying to move the process along.
But it is important that we talk about our rural districts and what
the SCHIP program would do to seniors. I have seniors who are going be
hurt by this.
Point of Order
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Point of order. Madam Chairman, the
gentlelady is engaged in irrelevant debate.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman will suspend.
The gentleman from Illinois will state his point of order.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Madam Chairman, the gentlewoman is engaged
in irrelevant debate.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Chairman, I just stated----
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Madam Chairman, I would like a ruling on my
point of order.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman will suspend.
The gentlewoman from North Carolina must confine her remarks to the
pending question.
The gentlewoman may proceed.
Ms. FOXX. Well, I will say again that we passed one budget in this
House that includes the money for all the spending bills. If there is
one budget, then it would seem to me that all of the spending bills are
tied to each other. Therefore, any spending bill has a connection to
every other spending bill. So there is a nexus there, and talking about
what is going to happen or what is being proposed in one spending bill
is relevant to every other spending bill. I simply don't see how you
can separate them.
[[Page H9264]]
It is going to be especially clear to the American people that that
is the case when an omnibus spending bill is brought here this fall and
we are asked to vote for, again, the largest tax increase in the
history of this country within the confines of a very, very large
spending bill.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Madam Chairman, I ask to strike the requisite
number of words.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Madam Chairman, I rise today on the McHenry
amendment, which would cut $100,000 from the USDA, the Department of
Agriculture. $100,000, that is the equivalent to what the out-of-pocket
costs will be if you have a 10 percent cut in Medicare Advantage for
poor health seniors in my State.
Point of Order
Ms. DeLAURO. Point of order.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Connecticut.
Ms. DeLAURO. The gentleman is engaged in irrelevant debate and is not
speaking about the issue at hand, the Agriculture appropriations bill.
Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. No, I actually was.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will suspend.
The gentleman from Oregon must confine his remarks to the pending
question.
The gentleman may proceed.
Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. I am trying to put what $100,000 means in
perspective for people who may actually get hit with higher costs
because of other policy changes coming down the road as part of this
overall budget.
I would also point out to my friends on the Democratic side of the
aisle that the Agriculture appropriations bill also contains in it
language related to drug reimportation; and, indeed, that is an issue
in this bill before this House at this time.
Certainly, if the Medicare Advantage plans are whacked in a rural
district, then perhaps seniors may want to take advantage of that
provision. I don't know. Because drug reimportation poses a whole set
of different issues that can be problematic, if you have seen some of
the polluted drugs coming in from China right now.
So that is an issue that concerns me. Because if they lose their
Medicare Advantage coverage that may help them in that area, who knows
what is left in terms of cuts in Medicare.
Point of Order
Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, point of order.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. OBEY. The House is not debating the issue of Medicare Advantage.
The House is debating an Agriculture appropriations bill, and the
gentleman has an obligation to stay on the subject.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will direct his remarks to the
pending question.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Parliamentary inquiry, Madam Chairman. Is there
not in the underlying bill language dealing with drug importation?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oregon must maintain an
ongoing nexus between the pending question and any broad policy issues.
The gentleman from Oregon may continue.
Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. So the policy here in this context would be
related to drugs, because in the underlying bill is drug reimportation
language.
There is not? Okay. So you are telling me in the Agriculture
appropriations bill there is no language in there that deals with drug
importation. That is news, if you read the bill.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will suspend.
Currently pending the House has before it the amendment of the
gentleman from North Carolina to the amendment of the gentleman from
Georgia. That is the business that is pending. That is the question
that the gentleman's remarks should be directed to.
Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. So you can't talk about anything else in the
agriculture bill, just the $100,000 cut.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair has ruled that the gentleman should
confine his remarks to the pending question, which is the McHenry
amendment to the Gingrey amendment.
point of order
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Point of order.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia has a point of order.
Please state it.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Chairman, do the rules of this House apply
the same to every Member of the House?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman stating a parliamentary inquiry
or a point of order?
Mr. WESTMORELAND. A parliamentary inquiry.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Oregon yield for that
purpose?
Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. I would be happy to yield.
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Parliamentary inquiry, Madam Chairman.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. State your parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Do the rules of this House apply to every Member
equally?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Chairman, further parliamentary inquiry. Is
it not true that the chairman of Energy and Commerce came to the floor
and never mentioned the amendment that was being discussed?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is not stating a parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Further parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. I continue to yield.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. The same parliamentary inquiry. Is it not true that
when the gentleman that is chair of Energy and Commerce----
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair does not exercise initiative in this
area but only rules on points of order as they are made.
The gentleman from Oregon is recognized.
Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I will try and
confine my remarks more to the McHenry amendment, which, as we know,
would cut $100,000 out of the Department of Agriculture.
Now, that $100,000 may not seem like a lot to many on this floor, but
it may seem like a lot to a senior if they are going to lose their
Medicare Advantage plan. But I know that is not the issue before us at
this moment. The issue really is, how do you control spending in the
Federal government?
I think one of the ways you control spending in the Federal
government is through the McHenry amendment. Because the McHenry
amendment reduces Federal spending by $100,000, which may not seem like
a lot to some and they may not want us to talk about how it could be
used in other programs that may come before this House at a different
time in a different way. But certainly, if you were going to lose your
Medicare, you would be concerned about you might save $100,000 here
that could be used somewhere else so you did not have to raise taxes
on, say, health insurance.
Saving $100,000 here is a good thing. It may not seem like a lot, but
it is still a good thing. It reduces spending, and this government has
had trouble reducing spending. We have spent a lot of time on this
floor debating amounts that are even less than $100,000. I would like
to see us go farther than that, because I also know in other committees
there is debate going on about having to raise revenues to fund other
programs.
point of order
Ms. DeLAURO. Point of order.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman will state her point of order.
Ms. DeLAURO. The gentleman's remarks need to be confined to the issue
at hand, the matter at hand. The amendment has to do with the Office of
the Secretary of Agriculture.
Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. That is what I am speaking to, Madam Chairman.
I am speaking to the $100,000 cut in the Office of the Secretary of
Agriculture.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will suspend.
[[Page H9265]]
The gentleman will confine his remarks to the pending matter, which
is the McHenry amendment.
Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. How am I not, Madam Chairman? How am I not
confining my remarks? Could you delineate? Can you not talk about
anything else, other than simply the words in the amendment?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman must confine his remarks to the
pending question.
Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. So I am. This amendment, if approved, would
save $100,000. This amendment, if approved, would save $100,000. I
would like to be able to put that in a broader context for my
colleagues in terms of what that might mean to other spending and other
situations around here where the Democrats have decided to raise----
point of order
Ms. DeLAURO. Point of order.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Connecticut.
Ms. DeLAURO. Is it not true that the issue is whether or not there is
$50,000 or $100,000 that is to be cut, and that is the issue at hand,
and that is the issue that ought to be addressed?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman is correct.
Ms. DeLAURO. And it has been accepted.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The McHenry amendment to the Gingrey amendment
is the pending question.
{time} 1830
Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Madam Chairman, I am speaking to the importance
of cutting $100,000 rather than $50,000.
Mr. GINGREY. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. GINGREY. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
Is it not true that these points of orders and parliamentary
inquiries that keep coming from the other side are just dilatory
tactics on their part to take away our ability to talk to the American
people and to this body on a very important issue?
Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Well, it would seem to me that they have
narrowed what we can say, trying to silence the minority, trying to
silence Republicans from bringing to light certain issues we care
about. We have been restricted now to simply talking about a dollar
amount on one amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Connecticut has already
spoken on the pending propositions.
Mr. ISRAEL. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. ISRAEL. I yield to the distinguished chairwoman of the
subcommittee.
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
I want to make the point that it is really laughable to talk about
dilatory. It really is. It is now not an hour and a half, it is almost
2\1/2\ hours on an amendment that has been accepted and a secondary
amendment that has been accepted by the Committee for the Department of
Agriculture. The cuts have been made.
Point of Order
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Chairman, point of order.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman will suspend. The gentleman may
state his point of order.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. As I understand the Chair's ruling before,
individual Members must confine their comments to the amendment at
hand.
Ms. DeLAURO. That is exactly what I'm doing. The amendment at hand,
the McHenry amendment, to increase the Gingrey amendment from $50,000
to $100,000. We have debated it. It has been accepted.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Is there a ruling from the Chair?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman has confined her remarks to the
pending question.
Mr. ISRAEL. I yield back the balance of my time.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Parliamentary inquiry.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may state it.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I have noticed that the Chair has qualitatively
ruled on the nature of Members' comments on the floor as it relates to
confining their comments to the amendment. I would suggest that is not
an appropriate compliance with the rules of the House.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair will respond to points of order as
they are made.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the Chair.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Parliamentary inquiry.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey may state his
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. When the Chair rules to a point of order
with respect to limiting one's comments or debate to the underlying
amendment that is before us at the time, is that time allowed to be
discussed on something with respect to the amount of time in essence
that we are discussing that bill or does the language only go to the
underlying amendment?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey, or any Member
addressing the House on a particular pending question, must maintain an
ongoing nexus between the pending question and any broader policy
issues.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Further parliamentary inquiry.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Is it a sufficient nexus to discuss the
amount of time that an individual is taking to discuss the underlying
amendment?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Broader issues could include the time being
consumed by the Member.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Thank you.
Mr. SHADEGG. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SHADEGG. I rise in strong support of the McHenry amendment to
reduce the budget of the Office of the Secretary by $101,000.
The reason I support that amendment is because I do not support
cutting the Medicare Advantage program by billions of dollars and
hurting seniors.
Point of Order
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Point of order.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois will state his point
of order.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Madam Chairman, the majority has accepted
the McHenry amendment and the minority continues to engage in
irrelevant debate.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona has confined his
remarks to the pending amendment. The gentleman may proceed.
Mr. SHADEGG. Thank you. I would rather cut the Secretary's budget by
$101 billion as a way to save money than to cut the Medicare Advantage
program because the Medicare Advantage program helps millions of
Americans and thousands in my own congressional district. So as the
Democrats propose to cut that program in their SCHIP bill, I believe it
would be better to cut this program.
I rise in support of the McHenry amendment to cut $101,000 from the
Secretary's budget because the Medicare Advantage bill will cut 3
million seniors' ability to collect their benefits through Medicare
Advantage. That 3 million includes some of the poorest of seniors who
are on Medicare Advantage, and I would rather cut $101,000 from the
Secretary's budget than cut that money going to Medicare seniors who
need it desperately.
I support the amendment by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
McHenry) to cut $101,000 from the budget of the Secretary of
Agriculture because the other cut we are faced with is a $15 billion
cut in part A, including a cut in benefits to skilled nursing
facilities, as the Democrats propose to do in their SCHIP bill.
I would rather cut the Department of Agriculture's budget than----
Point of Order
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Point of order.
[[Page H9266]]
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will suspend.
The gentleman from Illinois will state his point of order.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. The majority has accepted the McHenry
amendment and the minority continues to engage in irrelevant debate
about the SCHIP program in another bill for another day.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona must confine his
remarks to the pending question.
The gentleman may proceed.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. SHADEGG. Parliamentary inquiry.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. SHADEGG. I presume I can state my reason for supporting the
amendment; is that correct?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman must keep his remarks to the
pending question, and there must be a nexus between the pending
question and broader policy issues.
The gentleman may proceed.
Mr. SHADEGG. And I will continue to say that a $15 billion cut in
skilled nursing facilities is, from my perspective, a bad idea, much
worse than a $101,000 cut from the Secretary's budget. And, therefore,
I rise in strong support of the McHenry amendment because I don't want
to see skilled nursing cut as the Democrats propose to do in their
SCHIP bill.
I support the McHenry amendment which would cut $101,000 from the
Secretary's budget because I don't support cutting rehabilitation
facilities as the Democrats would do in their SCHIP bill.
Indeed, I would much prefer to cut $100,000 from the Secretary's
budget than to cut, as the Democrats do in their SCHIP bill,
rehabilitation facilities.
Point of Order
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Point of order.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will suspend.
The gentleman from Illinois will state his point of order.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Madam Chairman, the majority has accepted
the McHenry amendment and the minority continues to engage in
irrelevant debate about a piece of legislation that will come up in a
few days. We are discussing the Agriculture appropriations bill.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman must confine his remarks to the
pending question.
The gentleman may proceed.
Mr. SHADEGG. As I believe I have, quite skillfully.
I do rise in very strong support of the McHenry amendment because I
believe that cutting the Secretary's budget is a much better idea than
cutting skilled nursing facilities.
I believe it is a much better idea than cutting long-term hospital
facilities, as the Democrats do in their SCHIP bill. And I think it
would be much better to cut $100,000 from the Secretary of
Agriculture's administrative budget than to cut, as the Democrats do,
funding for long-term care by hospitals.
It seems to me this is a simple debate: Where do we cut? I would much
rather cut $100,000 from the budget of the Office of the Secretary than
to cut $9 billion from Medicare plan B, including payments for oxygen,
as the Democrats do in their SCHIP bill. It seems to me that kind of
cut in their SCHIP bill is a bad idea. I would rather support the
gentleman's amendment.
Point of Order
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Point of order.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois will state his point
of order.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Madam Chairman, the gentleman sounds like a
broken record. The majority has accepted the McHenry amendment and the
minority continues to engage in irrelevant debate.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois will state his point
of order.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. The majority has accepted the McHenry
amendment, and the minority continues to engage in irrelevant debate.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman making a point of order that
the debate is irrelevant?
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I am making the point of order that the
debate is absolutely irrelevant.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct. The gentleman from
Arizona must confine his remarks to the pending question.
Mr. SHADEGG. Madam Chairman, I seek a clarification. What was the
ruling of the Chair?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The point of order is correct. The gentleman
from Arizona must confine his remarks to the pending question.
Mr. SHADEGG. Precisely how did my remarks not----
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending question is the amendment by Mr.
McHenry of North Carolina to the amendment by the gentleman from
Georgia. That is the pending question.
Mr. SHADEGG. And I thank the Chairman for her ruling, and I am
pleased to say that each of my points have tried to explain that I
support, adamantly support the amendment by the gentleman to cut
$100,000 from the Secretary's budget because I don't favor these other
cuts. I don't favor cutting the funding for end-stage renal disease
programs. I would much rather cut the Department of Agriculture
administrative budget than do as the Democrats would in their SCHIP
bill, cut $3.6 billion from the end-stage renal disease program.
It seems to me that the amendment of the gentleman from North
Carolina to cut $100,000 from the administrative budget of the
Secretary is a much-preferable method to achieve the savings that we
need. In each of these instances, I believe that cutting the
Secretary's budget would make much more sense than cutting the Medicare
program.
I have constituents in my district who would much rather see us cut
the Ag budget than see us cut Medicare or see us cut end-stage renal
disease or than see us cut oxygen therapy as is all done in the
Democrats' SCHIP bill. For all of those reasons, I believe it is very
important that we support the gentleman's amendment.
Point of Order
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Point of order.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois may state his point
of order.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. The minority continues to engage in
irrelevant debate.
Mr. SHADEGG. There is nothing irrelevant about it.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona will suspend.
Does the gentleman make a point of order that the debate is
irrelevant?
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I make the point of order that the debate is
irrelevant.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct. The gentleman from
Arizona must confine his remarks to the pending question.
Mr. SHADEGG. I appeal the ruling of the Chair.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is: Shall the decision of the Chair
stand as the judgment of the Committee?
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. SHADEGG. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 220,
noes 178, not voting 39, as follows:
[Roll No. 777]
AYES--220
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Chandler
Christensen
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Faleomavaega
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
[[Page H9267]]
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOES--178
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Ferguson
Flake
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
McCarthy (CA)
McCotter
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--39
Allen
Bishop (UT)
Boucher
Braley (IA)
Buyer
Cannon
Cantor
Cardoza
Clarke
Cohen
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
Diaz-Balart, L.
Dicks
Doyle
Feeney
Forbes
Fortuno
Fossella
Hayes
Hunter
Johnson, Sam
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCrery
Miller, George
Nunes
Pickering
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Smith (TX)
Tancredo
Udall (CO)
Waters
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (OH)
Wynn
{time} 1906
Mr. PETRI changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Ms. KILPATRICK changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the decision of the Chair stands as the judgment of the Committee.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. SHADEGG. Madam Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. SHADEGG. As I understand the ruling of the Chair, it is
appropriate for me to say I support the gentleman's amendment because I
do not support cuts in skilled nursing facilities or cuts in
rehabilitation facilities or cuts in long-term care hospitals or cuts
in oxygen, or cuts in brachytherapy, or cuts in end-stage renal disease
or cuts in Medicare Advantage; but that I cannot say which appear in
their SCHIP bill. Is that correct?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is permissible to identify as preferable an
alternative object for funding. It is not permissible to dwell on the
merits of that alternative object.
The gentleman may proceed.
Mr. SHADEGG. I thank you very much for your ruling.
Madam Chairman, I do rise in support of the gentleman's amendment. I
believe that we have to find the funding necessary for essential
government programs and that cutting the Secretary of Agriculture is
much better than cutting such programs as skilled nursing facilities,
rehabilitation facilities, long-term care hospitals, oxygen under
Medicare, brachytherapy under Medicare, end-stage renal disease funding
under Medicare or Medicare Advantage.
For those reasons, I rise in strong support of the gentleman's
amendment.
Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Motion to Rise Offered by Mr. Hoyer
Mr. HOYER. Madam Chairman, I intend to ask for unanimous consent
after the motion that I make and we rise, and then I will make a
statement on the schedule that I perceive to be in front of us for such
time as it may take to complete the business of the people of our
country.
I move that the Committee do now rise.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion to rise.
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. GINGREY. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 235,
noes 153, not voting 49, as follows:
[Roll No. 778]
AYES--235
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonner
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castle
Castor
Chabot
Chandler
Christensen
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Faleomavaega
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Rehberg
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
[[Page H9268]]
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (FL)
NOES--153
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Capito
Carter
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis, David
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Emerson
English (PA)
Fallin
Feeney
Flake
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Jordan
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Kuhl (NY)
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
McCarthy (CA)
McCotter
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Regula
Reichert
Renzi
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
NOT VOTING--49
Allen
Bishop (UT)
Boucher
Braley (IA)
Buyer
Calvert
Cannon
Cantor
Cardoza
Clarke
Cummings
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
Diaz-Balart, L.
Dicks
Doyle
Ferguson
Forbes
Fortuno
Gingrey
Harman
Hayes
Hinchey
Hunter
Johnson, Sam
Keller
Knollenberg
LaHood
Lamborn
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCrery
Miller, George
Nunes
Paul
Pickering
Reyes
Reynolds
Ryan (WI)
Smith (TX)
Tancredo
Turner
Udall (CO)
Wasserman Schultz
Whitfield
Wicker
Young (AK)
{time} 1928
Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina and Mr. PEARCE changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
So the motion to rise was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
personal explanation
Mr. INSLEE. Madam Speaker, I was absent from the House floor during
today's vote on H.R. 2831, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2007,
which will protect women against pay discrimination and restore all
employee's rights regarding nondiscriminatory pay. The legislation will
reverse the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Ledbetter v. Goodyear by
putting into statute widely accepted rules in employment discrimination
law. I strongly support federal protections against pay discrimination;
therefore, had I been present, I would have voted for H.R. 2831.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Tierney) having assumed the chair, Mrs. Tauscher, Acting Chairman of
the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R.
3161) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food
and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes, had come to no
resolution thereon.
____________________