[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12654-12669]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



     PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4680, MEDICARE RX 2000 ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Goss) for 1 hour.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield, in 
the spirit of comity and bipartisanship, which is customary in this 
Chamber, the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Moakley), my friend; pending which I yield myself such time as I 
may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded 
is for the purpose of debate on this matter only.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an appropriate structured rule that ensures a 
rigorous debate on how best to provide our Nation's seniors with 
prescription drug coverage, a matter of great concern to them. The rule 
provides 2 hours of general debate divided equally between the minority 
and the majority of two committees of jurisdictions, the Committee on 
Ways and Means and the Committee on Commerce.
  The rule provides that the amendment recommended by the Committee on 
Ways and Means now printed in the bill, modified by the one printed in 
the Committee on Rules report, shall be considered as adopted.
  The rule also provides that, at any time on or before this Friday, it 
shall be in order for the House to entertain motions to suspend the 
rules with respect to two bills only. Mr. Speaker, I will repeat, it 
shall be in order for the House to entertain motions to suspend the 
rules with respect to two bills only, H.R. 3240 and H. Res. 535.
  Finally, the rule provides a motion to recommit with or without 
instructions. This is a minority right that has become standard in 
every bill under the Republican majority.
  Today is another historic day for our Nation's seniors. Three years 
ago, the Medicare program was speeding toward bankruptcy, many will 
recall. While the partisans and the naysayers said it could not be done 
to fix it, a Republican-led Congress appropriately stepped in and saved 
Medicare through sound structural reform of that program. Had we not 
acted responsibly, then our seniors would not even have access to 
hospitals or doctors let alone the services necessary to modernize the 
program. We met that challenge head on. We met it successfully.
  Today we take the logical next step to provide every senior with the 
opportunity of a safe and secure prescription drug benefit. This is 
very good news. As in 1995 and in 1997, we will hear a lot of partisan 
vitriol and rhetoric today, probably see even a little more theater of 
the type we have already seen this morning, what The Washington Post 
has labeled as ``Mediscare.'' We will hear poll-tested attack words 
like ``vouchers'' and ``privatize'' and maybe even words like ``risky 
scheme.''
  To be sure, this is an election year and nothing plays better than 
some good old-fashioned scare tactics aimed at the most vulnerable 
among us, our Nation's seniors, who we are here to serve, not walk out 
on.
  While we should expect such attacks, we cannot let them go 
unanswered. The bipartisan plan crafted by the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thomas)

[[Page 12655]]

and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) will provide a sound 
drug benefit while also recognizes the weakness of the current Medicare 
bureaucracy. It is a new universal benefit for all seniors that 
reflects the advances of our modern health care delivery system, not 
the outdated top-down bureaucracy of the old system.
  Unlike the President's plan, the bipartisan program we bring forward 
today promotes individual choice, choice so that our seniors can tailor 
the benefit to meet their own needs. Members of Congress currently 
enjoy a menu of choices when they choose their health care. We think it 
only appropriate that we extend that same privilege to our seniors.
  We also think it is important to recognize that two-thirds of our 
seniors already have drug coverage, and we do not want to force any of 
them to abandon what they already have. We let them keep their coverage 
if they like it and focus most of our attention on the one-third who 
currently lack coverage.
  Every senior has a right to complain about the rising cost of 
prescription drugs, this one included. Under the bipartisan plan, drug 
costs for the average senior will be cut by 25 percent, more than 
double the savings envisioned under the Clinton plan. This according to 
the independent Congressional Budget Office. We do not ignore those 
Americans with the highest drug costs.
  The bipartisan plan delivers a strong stop-loss program in 2003 that 
will cap the cost of drugs for every senior. The Democrat plan does not 
offer this protection until the year 2006, 3 years later, conveniently 
escaping the 5-year budget window, and calling into question the 
sincerity of their commitment to this goal and their fiscal rationales.
  Most importantly, the bipartisan plan provides unprecedented 
protections for our most needy seniors. We pay the full premium for any 
senior up to 135 percent of poverty with partial subsidies for those up 
to 150 percent. Poor seniors will no longer have to choose between 
paying their rent and getting needed prescription drugs.
  While H.R. 4780 is not a perfect plan, it does provide a workable 
benefit and a meaningful and lasting reform to our Medicare program. It 
does so without busting the budget and without endangering the safety 
of the security of the overall medical program, Medicare, which we care 
about and need to preserve and make strong.
  I am hopeful that Members will study the details, ignore the 
demagoguery, the dilatory tactics which we have already seen an 
abundance of, and support this historic reform to improve the quality 
of life of seniors across America.
  This rule will ensure a vigorous debate. That is the purpose of the 
rule. I urge its adoption.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), my dear friend, for 
yielding me the customary half hour.
  Mr. Speaker, if people say they have not had much time to look at the 
bill, it is probably because we voted it out of the Committee on Rules 
at 2:30 this morning, and not too many people were here in the Chamber 
at the time.
  Mr. Speaker, American seniors are having a very hard time today, and 
the House could really do something about it. Today we could have 
passed a Democratic bill to make sure that every single senior citizen 
gets help with their expensive prescription drugs and never again has 
to make the terrible choice between putting food on the table or 
medicine in their cabinet.
  But my Republican colleagues decided against legitimate help for 
seniors. Instead, they decided to offer a bill to pour billions of 
dollars into the coffers of insurance companies and drug companies on 
the off chance that these companies will offer people some kind, any 
kind of drug benefit. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the Republican drug bill 
does more for insurance companies and the Grand Old Party than it does 
for grandparents.
  Mr. Speaker, people with incomes over $12,600 get no direct help 
whatsoever from this Republican bill. But, Mr. Speaker, we have a 
chance to do something different. We have a Democratic prescription 
drug bill that would give every single senior American affordable, 
dispensable prescription drug coverage. It is ready right now. But the 
Republicans would not allow that amendment to be heard.
  Mr. Speaker, seniors need our help. American senior citizens were 
promised Social Security and health care. They were promised dignity. 
They took their country at its word. I believe we should keep that word 
and shore up their health care with a real prescription drug bill.
  Mr. Speaker, right now, the elderly account for one-third of the drug 
spending in this country. They spend an average of $1,100 each year. 
Let me repeat that, Mr. Speaker. The average senior citizen spends 
$1,100 each year on his or her medicine. But instead of us coming to 
their rescue, this rule makes in order a Republican drug bill that 
sounds great, but just does nothing to make seniors lives easier.
  Now, Monday's New York Times, this is not my statement, this is not 
the Democratic statement, this is the editorial in Monday's New York 
Times, described the Republican bill as guaranteeing the elderly 
nothing but undefined policy of uncertain costs. That is a wonderful 
thing for seniors to look forward to.
  Mr. Speaker, my Republican colleagues may cite respect for the Budget 
Act as an excuse not to help seniors with their prescription drugs, but 
let me tell my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, my Republican colleagues waived 
the Budget Act against eight appropriation bills, two emergency 
supplementals, and the Bankruptcy Reform Act in this very Congress 
alone.

                              {time}  1200

  The Republicans were willing to also waive the budget act for the 
minimum wage bill in order to accommodate tax cuts for the very rich. 
But, Mr. Speaker, they will not touch the budget act for senior 
citizens, even though we learned yesterday that the budget surplus will 
be twice as large as we originally anticipated.
  Mr. Speaker, seniors should get their prescription drugs from the 
same place they get their prescriptions, Medicare, no matter where they 
live, no matter how sick they are. The Democrats have a bill that will 
just do that. So I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of 
the Committee on Rules, who will speak to the question of doing the 
Nation's business on behalf of affordable prescription drugs for our 
seniors.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this very fair 
and balanced rule which will allow the opportunity for each side to 
come forward with its proposals.
  Mr. Speaker, each of us knows how important Medicare is to the 
American people, and not just to our Nation's senior citizens. Health 
care is obviously a key quality of life issue for seniors, so we are 
deeply concerned that parents, grandparents, and our older friends are, 
in fact, cared for and assured a strong and long and great quality of 
life.
  Winston Churchill said that democracy is the worst form of 
government, except for all the rest. Similarly, the health care system 
that we have here in the United States is the worst, except for all the 
rest. And Medicare has clearly got to be included in that. Make no 
mistake, as I said, we have the best health care system in the world, 
but it is not perfect.
  Medicare itself has clearly helped improve the quality of life for 
seniors for 3 decades now. The biggest mistake we can make is to try to 
look at a 3-decade-old program, which Medicare is, and freeze it in 
time. Here we are in a new millennium, and it is obvious that changes 
need to be made. We need to have a Medicare system which is going to 
focus on how it is that we can improve access and affordability of 
quality health care for our Nation's seniors.
  Clearly, prescription drugs and the availability of those 
prescription drugs

[[Page 12656]]

is very high on the priority list. We want to make sure that we get the 
best quality and the most affordable prescription drugs and that they 
are available to the American people. We know that those drugs save 
lives. We know that we, clearly, as a Nation, have an industry which is 
on the cutting edge at developing so many of these new drugs. The 
biotechnology industry. We have just in the last few days had this very 
historic development in genome research.
  I believe that we have now a wonderful opportunity to ensure that we 
get those quality drugs through this plan that we have put forward for 
our seniors. We are committed to ensuring that every American senior 
has the opportunity to have affordable and effective prescription drug 
programs to deal with this under the Medicare plan.
  Frankly, both sides share that priority. I know the Democrats like to 
believe that they have a corner on this, but they do not. We have 
stepped forward, and we have been working hard with what is a very, 
very fair plan.
  Our plan, I am happy to say, accomplishes this goal as part of a very 
fiscally responsible program. And we believe, as Republicans, that we 
can do much better than a one-size-fits-all plan, which is what my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle are proposing. Our plan 
clearly should enjoy strong bipartisan support. And I predict that, at 
the end of the day, when we do have this vote, we will have the support 
of both Democrats and Republicans on this issue.
  Now, let me take just a moment, Mr. Speaker, if I may, to talk about 
the rule itself and how we got to where we are. Many people are talking 
about the fact that we met in the middle of the night. And yes, it is 
true that it was 3:31 this morning when the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Sessions) and I were here and filed this rule. The fact of the matter 
is, it does, as I said, give an opportunity for the Republicans to come 
forward with a Republican plan and the Democrats to come forward with 
their plan.
  Now, that is not something that would have existed when the Democrats 
were in the majority. And the reason I say that is that time and time 
again the minority, Republicans at that point, were not offered the 
chance to propose their alternative. Yet we, when we took the majority 
in 1994, having served for four long decades in the minority, said that 
we wanted to guarantee minority rights, and we made that change, Mr. 
Speaker. And the change is one which allows the Democrats the chance to 
come forward with their minority proposal. We made that change.
  We guarantee the minority that right. Now, they will scream that they 
should have two bites of the apple while we, as Republicans, have one 
bite of the apple. That seems to me to be unfair to the majority. So we 
have a proposal which says let us look at their plan, let us look at 
our plan, and then have a vote. And that is exactly what this will 
consist of.
  So it is a fair and balanced rule. It allows everyone the opportunity 
to look at the two choices and then have a vote. And I hope very much 
that my colleagues will support the rule and at the end of the day 
support this very fair bill.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
so that, before my chairman leaves, I can read him something from the 
Washington Post this morning.
  In the editorial page it says: ``The legislation was hastily 
assembled and in our judgment wouldn't work. Not well, anyway. But the 
bill will achieve its principal purpose, which is to provide 
Republicans with cover, a basis for saying in the fall campaign that 
they are, too, for drug benefits, just not the kind the Democrats 
propose.''
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. 
Kennedy).
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, every time seniors have to 
choose between drugs and food, they are going to remember this vote. 
Every time, in the future, when seniors have to cut their pills in 
order to make them last longer, they are going to remember this vote. 
Every time seniors are going to have to share their medications because 
they cannot afford them, they are going to remember this vote.
  But I will tell my colleagues when they are really going to remember 
this vote. They are going to remember this vote in the November 
election, when they vote to return a Democratic majority to the House 
of Representatives. Because this Republican plan is nothing more than 
empty promises. And what do America's seniors get when they get empty 
promises? They get empty pill jars.
  That is what this prescription drug plan that the Republicans have is 
all about: empty promises equaling empty pill jars.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member for 
the time and for his leadership on this important issue.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a very important debate today. Too bad we cannot 
have the Democratic option before us so that we could have a discussion 
that this issue deserves.
  Since the creation of Medicare 35 years ago, the curative power of 
prescription medicines has increased dramatically. What once required 
surgeries and hospital care now can be treated with prescription 
medicines. However, these medicines are often very expensive. Prices 
for the 50 most prescribed drugs for senior citizens have been going 
up, on average, at twice the rate of inflation over the past 6 years. 
As these prices have soared, our Nation's elderly and disabled 
populations have found it harder and harder to afford the treatments 
their doctors prescribe.
  As with so many of the issues that we have recently debated in this 
Chamber, the debate between the Democratic and Republican prescription 
drug plans comes down to a question of priorities. Democrats offer a 
voluntary, affordable, guaranteed prescription drug benefit that is 
available to all citizens through Medicare, the same program that has 
provided reliable access to doctor and hospital care for 30 years.
  But the American people will not have a chance to hear about it, 
because in the dark of night the Republican majority has foisted a rule 
on this House that does not give us a chance to present our option to 
the American people. But America should know that we will be tireless 
in our efforts to have our proposal of direct benefits prevail.
  It is no wonder that the Republican's scheme shies away from 
Medicare. The Republicans have always opposed it. Former Speaker 
Gingrich once said that Medicare would wither on the vine because we 
think people are voluntarily going to leave it. And the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Armey), in 1995, called Medicare ``a program I would have no 
part of in the free world.''
  Mr. Speaker, it is very important that the Democratic plan prevail; 
that we have a plan that has a guaranteed defined benefit that gives 
seniors the benefit of being in a purchasing group which is private. We 
will work tirelessly to that end. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Ms. Stabenow).
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I appreciate very much his leadership and that of my 
colleagues that are working so hard on this issue.
  I rise today to express my deep, deep disappointment that this rule 
does not allow for a vote on a real solution to the high cost of 
prescription drugs for older Americans. I want to share just a few 
words from Connie Lisuzzo from Dearborn, Michigan, who wrote me, as 
thousands of seniors and disabled have written me from Michigan, 
pleading for some help so they do not have to choose between getting 
their food and getting their medications.
  She writes, ``I am a widow of 18 years. I am now 72 years of age. I 
find prescriptions going up every day. I have no insurance to cover any 
of these

[[Page 12657]]

costs. I call around for the best price I can get. Seems that every 
visit to the doctor adds one more prescription. Please help us so we 
won't have to make choices between food and prescriptions.''
  Unfortunately, today, Mr. Speaker, this bill does not directly help 
Connie Lisuzzo and the millions of other seniors who earn above $12,525 
a year, barely enough to live on, which, by the way, are the majority 
of seniors in Michigan. I urge us to pass a bill that makes sense and 
modernize Medicare.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Rhode Island (Mr. Weygand).
  Mr. WEYGAND. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule 
and against the Republican plan.
  This bill that has been forced on to the floor will provide nothing 
for my constituents back in Rhode Island. Matter of fact, it will be 
more harmful than helpful. Our Democratic colleagues and I have put 
together a proposal that will be a prescription drug coverage as part 
of Medicare versus part of private insurance.
  That is really the clear difference between our two proposals. We 
would have a reliable consistent option that would provide for choices 
and be a voluntary plan. Their proposal would really put more money in 
or pad the pockets of insurance companies.
  Rhode Islanders already know what happens when we rely too heavily on 
private insurance coverage. Over 120,000 Rhode Islanders, about 12 
percent of our population, lost their health care coverage overnight 
when an HMO pulled out because it was not profitable for them to stay 
in our State any more. This is the same type of system that is proposed 
today as part of prescription drug coverage by the Republican plan. 
This will just not work.
  We want to create a system that will truly be beneficial for our 
seniors, but this is a system that will surely fail. Vote ``no'' on the 
rule; vote ``no'' on the Republican plan.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the Democratic whip.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership has noticed that 
affordable prescription medicine is a major problem. Unfortunately, all 
they see is a major political problem. That is why today they have come 
to the floor with a purely political response, a scheme that, in the 
words of the National Senior Citizens Law Center, and I quote, says 
``does nothing to address the needs of seniors for meaningful and 
affordable prescription drug coverage.'' Nothing.
  America would be better off if the Republican leadership spent less 
time talking to their pollsters and more time listening to Dolores 
Martin, a person in my district. We call her Dee. She is 70 years of 
age. In April, she had two angioplasties. She does not need any 
pollsters to tell her about the high cost of medicine. She spends $330 
each month.
  What does the Republican plan offer seniors like Dee? Well, the 
chance to buy insurance she cannot afford from companies who do not 
even want to sell it to her. That is what they are all about. And all 
the sponsors say that the insurance companies and the HMOs will lower 
their prices only if we give them enough money. Their message is: trust 
the HMOs and trust the insurance companies.

                              {time}  1215

  My God, have we not learned anything in these last few years?
  Older Americans deserve better. They have earned the right to 
affordable prescription medicine. And that is exactly what our plan 
would provide. But, as we heard today, we are not allowed to present 
our plan. We are not given an opportunity to each debate our proposal, 
let alone vote on it.
  At a time when older Americans desperately need affordable medicine, 
the Republicans have written a prescription for disaster.
  Say no to this sham. Vote ``no'' on this rule.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Wexler).
  Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Speaker, this Republican bill is bad medicine. 
Instead of providing prescription coverage for seniors, this bill 
provides political coverage for Republicans. Premiums are 40 percent 
higher than the Democratic plan. Worst of all, it puts seniors 
desperate for life-saving drugs at the mercy of greedy HMOs.
  Sorry Mom, one year you are covered, the next you are not.
  Instead of helping seniors get well, this plan helps insurance 
companies get wealthy.
  Mr. Speaker, seniors deserve a second opinion by allowing a vote on 
the Democratic plan which guarantees Medicare drug coverage. 
Republicans are guilty of congressional malpractice. And since they 
killed the Patients' Bill of Rights, we cannot even sue them.
  Who will this bill truly cover? Republicans on election day.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of my dear friend from 
Florida (Mr. Goss) if he has any speakers to defend his position?
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to inform the distinguished 
gentleman from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) that we 
actually have several speakers who are on their way. We have been 
trying to let the time balance out.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, could the gentleman tell me where they are 
on their way from?
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, they are nearby.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, so the gentleman does not have any speakers 
at the present time?
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, actually, at this time we do have a speaker. 
If I could inquire how much time is remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Both sides have 19 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, perhaps the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Moakley) would like to continue on his side since we are going to 
close, and then we will have a speaker ready to go.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Moakley) actually has 17\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Goss) has 19\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) has 
more time, so he can go if he would like.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much, and I 
appreciate the consideration. We see the spirit of bipartisan comity at 
work in the House, and we are very thankful for that.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Ms. Pryce).
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this 
rule, which will allow the House to debate a plan to give seniors 
access to affordable prescription drugs. This bipartisan plan is 
voluntary, affordable, and covers all Medicare beneficiaries.
  Yet, the other side wants to change the subject. They want to divert 
our attention away from the fact that this Congress is about to vote on 
one of the most significant issues we face this year by trying to bring 
this House to a halt and to prove their claim that we are a ``do 
nothing Congress.''
  It has been their plan all along. Before this rule was even written, 
they had the press release out celebrating their dramatic walk-out on 
the debate this morning.
  Regardless of how many substitutes, amendments, hours of debate, 
their rhetoric and antics would be the same.
  Well, methinks thou doth protest too much.
  My colleagues know full well that, under this fair process, the rule 
provides that both Republicans and Democrats get one bite of the apple, 
one for them and one for us.
  I would remind my colleagues that even this basic fairness was never 
guaranteed until the Republicans took control of the House and ensured 
that a motion to recommit would always be available to the minority.
  But they do not want a fair fight. They want an unfair advantage. The 
Democrats do not want to debate the

[[Page 12658]]

issue. They are throwing a temper tantrum to divert attention away from 
the merits of this bill.
  Well, frankly, it is a transparent political strategy and it is 
irresponsible. But these political stunts are not surprising. It has 
been clear for some time that the issue of prescription drugs has been 
a political game to the Democrats all along. And every minute they 
waste, every dilatory tactic and every delay they employ will show 
their real intentions. They did not walk out on us, Mr. Speaker. They 
walked out on American seniors. And shame on them.
  Mr. Speaker, I think the American people deserve better. They deserve 
an honest debate about the merits of the Medicare prescription drug 
plan that is before this House. Unfortunately, the Democrats' political 
grandstanding is designed to eclipse an honest debate on the merits. 
But we will walk through it if we must. We will do it cheerfully. The 
American people deserve no less. They want to hear an honest debate.
  I urge my colleagues, come back from their grandstanding, their press 
conferences, their parade, and let us get to work. I urge my colleagues 
to support this fair rule.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to hear my colleague talk about a fair 
debate. If this were a fair debate, a Democratic substitute or an 
alternative would have been allowed. It was not. And if they call a 
motion to recommit a fair debate, which allows 10 minutes of debate at 
the end of the bill after all the debate, I do not understand it. And 
if it were not for that poll that was taken by some Republican 
leadership, this bill would not be on the floor because it showed the 
American people want a prescription bill.
  So if they want to talk about politics, let us talk about politics.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Deutsch).
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I hope that people here and people watching 
on C-SPAN have a sense of what is going on. We are debating a rule, and 
what that rule does, it prevents the Democrats from offering a 
prescription drug coverage bill. That is what the rule does.
  Now, why would the Republican leadership want to do that rule? Think 
about that for a second. The reason they want that rule is it might 
pass, the Democratic proposal might pass if offered. And so, by this 
rule, the Democratic option will not be available.
  Why not? Well, the Republican proposal, specifically when we get into 
what it does, literally destroys Medicare. It changes Medicare from a 
universal mandatory health care system for seniors to a selective 
system only for seniors who are at 130 percent of poverty.
  So the broad-based political support that we have for Social Security 
and Medicare would end, and the things that we have done to sustain 
Medicare would end.
  Mr. Speaker, the issue of a voucher part of the program would also be 
part of the Republican proposal, fundamentally different than what the 
Democrats are trying to do.
  Finally, very quickly, in closing I say that, in 1965, Medicare would 
not have been passed if the Republicans were in charge. It will not 
pass in the year 2000 with the Republican majority.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Frost).
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, in our small little meeting room on the third 
floor of the Capitol last night, long after the evening television news 
and safely passed newspaper deadlines, at approximately 2:30 a.m., 
Republican Congressional leaders moved to kill the momentum for 
prescription medicine help for seniors.
  That is why there will be no vote in the House of Representatives 
today on a guaranteed Medicare prescription coverage plan for all 
seniors who want it, which Democrats offered in the Committee on Rules 
last night and which we are being prevented by this rule being debated 
right now from offering on the floor today.
  Instead, this Republican Congress would do its best today to place an 
attractive shroud on the coffin of Medicare prescription coverage. The 
Republican plan provides seniors with nothing but an empty promise, one 
guaranteed by nothing more than their faith in the Republican party and 
their allies among the HMOs and insurance companies.
  Until recently, Republicans made little secret of their indifference 
to skyrocketing prescription costs or their hostility toward Medicare 
itself. Over the past few years, we have all become aware of how poorly 
Americans have been treated by HMOs and insurance companies.
  Under the Republican plan, though, their HMO or insurance company 
will decide which prescription medicines they get as well as which 
doctors they see. That is why Democrats earlier today took the dramatic 
step of walking off the House floor, because Republicans know that only 
in the dark of night can they hope to get away with denying seniors 
guaranteed Medicare prescription coverage and because guaranteed 
Medicare prescription coverage will remain a top Democratic priority 
until we get it done in a Republican Congress this year or in a 
Democratic Congress next year.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of my friend if any 
of his wandering minstrels have showed up.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, we are doing very well attracting some very 
quality testimony for this debate. And, of course, we have Members out 
doing other things today despite efforts by the opposition to shut down 
the House, which they announced last night, which is regrettable 
because there is the Nation's business to do.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman 
from Tennessee (Mr. Bryant).
  Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Speaker, Social Security and Medicare, as we know it 
today, are not going to go away. Please do not listen to those scare 
tactics and listen to the honest debate that is before this House today 
on prescription drug benefits.
  People have always wanted insurance to protect against their losses 
whether it is their house from burning or their car from being wrecked 
or loss of income from death or disability and, as always, they wanted 
a choice to be able to select the insurance that best fits their 
specific needs.
  People do not want to look to Washington for the one-sheet-fits-all 
that we hear about so often, that solution that we know best in 
Washington. We all want to be in charge of making our own health care 
decisions.
  Our bipartisan Republican/Democratic bill that we are talking about 
on this side does just that. If my mother likes the prescription drug 
program she is on, she gets to stay on that. She does not have to look 
to Washington for that one-shoe-fits-all. Now, if she wants to shop 
around for something better, then she has that freedom to do so. She 
has a real choice here.
  Our bipartisan bill establishes a cap or a limit what a senior would 
have to pay each year even for high-cost drugs. So if we want a cap or 
limitation, our bipartisan bill establishes this cap or a limit on what 
a senior citizen will have to pay each year, even in high-cost drug 
situations.
  So if my colleagues have seniors in their district who like to make 
their own health care choices, they ought to vote for this bipartisan 
bill. And if they have seniors who would really enjoy the security and 
the peace of mind of knowing that their yearly drug bill is limited, 
they might want to vote for this bill also and for this rule, which I 
strongly support.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel).
  Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this unfair, partisan, shameful 
rule. The fact, Mr. Speaker, is Medicare works. That is why we should 
add to Medicare a prescription drug benefit. That is the only way to 
add a reliable, affordable, guaranteed benefit for seniors.
  We should not force seniors to deal with private insurance companies 
to get prescription drug coverage. Why?

[[Page 12659]]

Those private insurance companies are not reliable.
  The two major private insurance companies in Philadelphia that 
dominate the market have both in recent months reduced their 
prescription drug coverage, one company reducing from an $1,800 a year 
benefit to $1,000 and now down to $500 a year benefit, for the same 
premium I might add; and the second company refusing to cover any more 
brand name drugs, only covering generics for the same premium they 
originally charged. That will not do.
  What can I say to Earl and Irene Baker of Lansdale, Pennsylvania? 
They need real insurance coverage for prescription drugs.
  I urge a no vote on this rule.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, might I inquire about the status of the time 
on either side at this point.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) has 
15\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) has 13 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Goss) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would ask unanimous consent for the body to extend the 
time on this debate for 4 minutes and allow me a total of 5 minutes to 
speak.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Does the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Goss) yield for the request?
  Mr. GOSS. I regret I am unable to yield the additional 4 minutes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 1 minute.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, point of inquiry. Is it out of order to make 
a unanimous consent request outside of the rule for additional time on 
extension of the rule?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The manager of the resolution must yield for 
that request and has not yielded. The gentleman is recognized for 1 
minute.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, we are having a debate today; and we have 
heard a lot of partisan bickering back and forth, and it is because 
what we are doing is the wrong thing, and the politics of Washington is 
claiming to fix a problem that is very real, but it is fixing the wrong 
problem. The problem is, there is no competition within the 
pharmaceutical industry and what is there is limited in its base. As we 
seek to solve the problem for the very seniors that need our help, if 
we do not solve the problem on competition, then we will, in fact, have 
wasted Medicare dollars and cost-shifted another large cost of health 
care to the private sector.
  I would like to introduce into the Record the FTC Web site showing 
four pharmaceutical companies who have been paying their competitors 
not to bring drugs to market, costing the American consumers over $250 
million a year. I would also enter into the Record various portions of 
the paper talking about the pricing of prescription drugs, not the 
availability but the pricing. If we fail to address that, we have 
shirked our duty completely. Neither the Republican or the Democrat 
bill does that.

Why the High Cost of Prescription Drugs Is a Problem We Can't Afford to 
                                 Ignore

       Spending on prescriptions rose a record 17.4% last year. 
     Elderly patients saw the largest increases, with average 
     prescription prices increasing 18% for women aged 70-79 and 
     20% for women 80 and older. Men in the same age groups fared 
     a bit better, experiencing 9% and 11% increases, 
     respectively. For all Americans, prescription spending 
     averaged $387.09 per person in 1999, up from $329.83 in 
     1998.--Study by Express Scripts, a St. Louis-based pharmacy 
     benefits manager, which examined claims data from more than 9 
     million patients, reflecting average wholesale prices, June 
     27, 2000.
       Express Scripts projects that spending on prescription 
     drugs will nearly double over the next five years, reaching 
     $758.81 per person in 2004.--Wall Street Journal, June 27, 
     2000.
       The history of Medicare shows that the federal government 
     has seriously underestimated the future growth of the 
     program. In 1964, the Johnson administration projected that 
     Medicare in 1990 would cost about $12 billion (with an 
     adjustment for inflation); the actual cost was $110 billion--
     almost a 1,000% cost underestimate. How much of a cost 
     underestimate can we afford for prescription drugs?--The 
     Origins of Medicare by Robert B. Helms, American Enterprise 
     Institute, April 1999.
       Express Scripts noted that the introduction of new drugs, 
     such as the arthritis medicines Vioxx and Celebrex, 
     contributed significantly to the rise in spending last year. 
     However, roughly half of the total increase in drug spending 
     was due to higher prescription costs.--New York Times, June 
     27, 2000.
       Of the 50 top selling drugs for seniors in 1999; 11 
     increased at least 5 times the rate of inflation; 16 
     increased at least 3 times the rate of inflation; 33 
     increased at least 1.5 times the rate of inflation, and only 
     12 increased slower than the rate of inflation.--Families 
     USA, April 2000.
       Of the 50 top selling drugs for seniors between 1994 and 
     2000, 39 of which were marketed for all six years, 6 
     increased at least 5 times the rate of inflation; 11 
     increased at least three times the rate of inflation; 22 
     increased at least 2 times the rate of inflation; 30 
     increased at least 1.5 times the rate of inflation, and 37 
     increased faster than inflation.--Families USA, April 2000.
       While prescription drugs accounted for about 5% of overall 
     health care spending in 1992, some experts have predicted 
     that that figure could rise to about 15% within 10 years.--
     Los Angeles Times, May 29, 2000.
       Drug spending is increasing 15% to 20% a year even in well-
     run private health plans.--New York Times, May 15, 2000.
       For 1999, drug spending is projected to have risen 14% to 
     18%, according to HCFA. A recent study by Families USA, a 
     health-care advocacy group, said the average cost of the 50 
     drugs most used by the elderly rose 3.9% last year, outpacing 
     the 2.2% inflation rate, and the prices of some medications 
     jumped as much as 10%.--Wall Street Journal, May 11, 2000.
       Pharmacia Corp., which markets a generic version of the 
     drug called Toposar, reported a price of $157.65 for a 20-
     milligram dose in the 1999 industry guide. But the actual 
     average wholesale price is $9.70, according to a government 
     price list.--Wall Street Journal, June 2, 2000.
       Today, federal and state investigators are threatening 
     civil litigation against pharmaceutical makers that 
     authorities believe have induced Medicare and Medicaid to 
     overpay for prescription drugs by $1 billion or more a 
     year.--Wall Street Journal, May 12, 2000.
       In 1997, Zachary Bentley, an employee of a Florida company 
     called Ven-A-Care that offered patients the option of 
     receiving intravenous drugs in their homes rather than at a 
     hospital, sent a toilet seat and an overpriced drug to HCFA. 
     Bentley noted that Medicare was paying providers almost $428 
     a day for a product that could be bought for $49--proof, in 
     Bentley's view, that the agency was wasting tax dollars as 
     the Pentagon did with its high-priced toilet seats in the 
     1980s.--Wall Street Journal, May 12, 2000.
                                  ____


    FTC Charges Drug Manufacturers with Stifling Competition in Two 
                       Prescription Drug Markets


 complaint filed against hoechst marion roussel, inc. and andrx corp.; 
    proposed settlement reached with abbott laboratories and geneva 
                         pharmaceuticals, inc.

 complaints charge multi-million-dollar arrangements were designed to 
     keep generic versions of cardizem cd and hytrin off the market

       The Federal Trade Commission today charged two drug makers, 
     Hoechst Marion Roussel (now Aventis) and Andrx Corporation, 
     with engaging in anticompetitive practices in violation of 
     Section 5 of the FTC Act, alleging that Hoechst, the maker of 
     Cardizem CD, a widely prescribed drug for treatment of 
     hypertension and angina, agreed to pay Andrx millions of 
     dollars to delay bringing its competitive generic product to 
     market. The Commission also announced a proposed settlement 
     with two other drug makers, Abbott Laboratories and Geneva 
     Pharmaceuticals, Inc., resolving charges that the companies 
     entered into a similar anticompetitive agreement in which 
     Abbott paid Geneva substantial sums to delay bringing to 
     market a generic alternative to Abbott's brand-name 
     hypertension and prostate drug, Hytrin.
       ``The financial arrangements between the branded and 
     generic manufacturers were designed to keep generic versions 
     of Cardizem CD and Hytrin off the market for an extended 
     period of time,'' said Richard Parker, Director of the FTC's 
     Bureau of Competition. ``These types of agreements have the 
     potential to cost consumers hundreds of millions of dollars 
     each year, Parker noted. He further explained that ``the 
     proposed consents with Abbot and Geneva will provide 
     immediate guidance to the drug industry and the antitrust bar 
     with regard to these kinds of arrangements, and the Hoechst-
     Andrx complaint will allow the Commission to further consider 
     the issues as it examines the arrangement in that case in 
     light of a record developed during an administrative 
     hearing.''

[[Page 12660]]

       Under legislation commonly known as the Hatch-Waxman Act, a 
     company can seek approval from the Food and Drug 
     Administration (FDA) to market a generic drug before the 
     expiration of a patent relating to the brand name drug upon 
     which the generic is based. Pursuant to this Act, the first 
     company to file an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) 
     with the FDA has the exclusive right to market the generic 
     drug for 180 days. No other generic can gain FDA approval 
     until this 180-day period expires. The purpose of the 
     exclusivity period is to encourage generic entry.
       To begin the FDA approval process, the generic applicant 
     must: (1) certify in its ANDA that the patent in question is 
     invalid or is not infringed by the generic product (known as 
     a ``paragraph IV certification''); and (2) notify the patent 
     holder of the filing of the ANDA. If the patent holder files 
     an infringement suit against the generic applicant within 45 
     days of the ANDA notification, FDA approval to market the 
     generic drug is automatically stayed for 30 months, unless, 
     before that time, the patent expires or is judicially 
     determined to be invalid or not infringed. This 30-month 
     automatic stay allows the patent holder time to assert its 
     patent rights in court before a generic competitor is 
     permitted to enter.
     Hoechst-Andrx complaint allegations
       Hoechst sells Cardizem CD, a once-a-day diltiazem product 
     used to treat hypertension and angina--chronic, severe chest 
     pain due to a reduction in blood flow to the heart. The 
     Hoechst product accounts for approximately 70 percent of all 
     once-a-day diltiazem products sold in the United States. In 
     September 1995, Andrx filed its ANDA with the FDA to 
     manufacture and distribute a generic version of the drug, 
     and, as the first to file, was entitled to the 180-day 
     exclusivity right. Hoechst promptly sued Andrx for patent 
     infringement, which triggered the 30-month stay on FDA 
     approval of Andrx's ANDA. This 30-month period expired in 
     July 1998.
       In September 1997, the FTC's complaint alleges, Hoechst and 
     Andrx entered into an agreement in which Andrx was paid to 
     stay off the market. Under the agreement, Andrx would not 
     market its product when it received FDA approval, would not 
     give up or transfer its 180-day exclusivity right, and would 
     not even market a non-infringing generic version of Cardizem 
     CD.
       In exchange, Hoechst paid Andrx $10 million per quarter, 
     beginning in July 1998, when Andrx gained FDA approval for 
     its product. The agreement also stipulated that Hoechst would 
     pay Andrx an additional $60 million per year from July 1998 
     to the conclusion of the lawsuit of Andrx prevailed.
       According to the FTC, the agreement acted as a bottleneck 
     that prevented any other potential competitors from entering 
     the market because: (1) Andrx would not market its product 
     and thus its 180 days of exclusivity would not begin to run; 
     and (2) other generics were precluded from entering the 
     market because Andrx agreed not to give up or transfer its 
     exclusivity.
       According to the complaint, Hoechst's agreement with Andrx 
     had the ``purpose or effect, or the tendency or capacity'' to 
     restrain trade in the market for once-a-day diltiazem and in 
     other narrower markets. Entry of a generic into the market 
     immediately would have introduced a lower-cost alternative 
     and would have started the 180-day waiting period.
       The complaint alleges that the agreement between Hoechst 
     and Andrx constituted an unreasonable restraint of trade; 
     that Hoechst attempted to preserve its monopoly in the 
     relevant market; that Hoechst and Andrx conspired to 
     monopolize the relevant market; and that the acts and 
     practices are anticompetitive and constitute unfair methods 
     of competition, all in violation of Section 5.
     Abbott-Geneva: Complaint allegations
       Hytrin is the brand-name for terazosin HCL, a prescription 
     drug marketed and sold by Abbott Laboratories. This drug is 
     used to treat hypertension and benign prostatic hyperplasia 
     (``BPH'' or enlarged prostate). Both hypertension and BPH are 
     chronic conditions affecting millions of Americans each year, 
     many of them senior citizens. According to the complaint, 
     Abbott paid Geneva $4.5 million per month to keep Geneva's 
     generic version of Hytrin off the U.S. market. This agreement 
     also resulted in a significant delay in the introduction of 
     other generic versions of Hytrin because Geneva was the first 
     filer with the FDA and other companies could not market their 
     generic products until 180 days after Geneva's entry.
       In January 1993, Geneva filed an ANDA with the FDA for a 
     generic version of terazosin HCL in tablet form; Geneva filed 
     a similar ANDA for a generic version of terazosin in capsule 
     from in December 1995. In April 1996, Geneva filed a 
     Paragraph IV certification with the FDA for both ANDAs.
       On June 4, 1996, Abbott sued Geneva, claiming patent 
     infringement by Geneva's generic terazosin HCL tablet 
     product. Abbott mistakenly made no such claim against 
     Geneva's capsule version of the product, even though both 
     tablets and capsules involved the same potential infringement 
     issues. Pursuant to the Hatch-Waxman Act, Abbott's lawsuit 
     triggered a 30-month stay of final FDA approval of Geneva's 
     generic tablet ANDA, until December 1998. Because no similar 
     lawsuit was filed regarding the generic capsule, the FDA's 
     review and approval process regarding this product continued.
       The complaint alleges that Geneva, confident that it would 
     win its patent infringement dispute with Abbott, planned to 
     bring its generic terazosin HCL capsule to market as soon as 
     possible after FDA approval. As the first filer for approval 
     of generic Hytrin capsules, Geneva would enjoy the 180-day 
     exclusivity period provided under the Hatch-Waxman Act.
       When Geneva actually received FDA approval to market its 
     generic capsules, Geneva contacted Abbott and announced that 
     it would launch its product unless Abbott paid it not to 
     enter the market. Abbott, which estimated that the entry of a 
     generic would eliminate $185 million in Hytrin sales in the 
     first six months, reached an agreement with Geneva on April 
     1, 1998, pursuant to which Geneva would not bring a generic 
     terazosin HCL product to market until the earlier of: (1) 
     final resolution of the patent infringement lawsuit involving 
     the generic tablet product (including possible review by the 
     Supreme Court); or (2) entry into the market of another 
     generic terazosin HCL product. Geneva also agreed not to 
     transfer, assign or relinquish its 180-day exclusivity right 
     to market its generic product.
       In exchange, the complaint alleges, Abbott would pay Geneva 
     $4.5 million per month until the district court ruled on the 
     ongoing patent infringement dispute. If the court found that 
     Geneva's tablet product did not infringe any ``valid and 
     enforceable claim'' of Abbott's patent, Abbott agreed to pay 
     $4.5 million monthly after that decision into an escrow 
     account until the final resolution of the litigation. Under 
     the agreement, the party ultimately prevailing in the patent 
     litigation would receive the escrow funds. The court hearing 
     the patent infringement case was not made aware of the 
     agreement between the companies.
       In accordance with the agreement, Geneva did not introduce 
     its generic capsules in April 1998, and instead began 
     collecting the $4.5 million monthly payments from Abbott, 
     which exceeded the amount Abbott expected Geneva to receive 
     from actually marketing the drug. On September 1, 1998, the 
     district court granted Geneva's motion for summary judgment 
     in its patent litigation with Abbott, invalidating Abbott's 
     patent. Despite this victory, Geneva still did not enter the 
     market with its generic product, content to have Abbott make 
     monthly $4.5 million payments into the escrow account. On 
     July 1, 1999, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 
     affirmed the decision invalidating Abbott's patent. Under the 
     agreement, Geneva was to await Supreme Court consideration of 
     the matter before entering. According to the complaint, 
     Geneva did not enter until August 13, 1999, when, aware of 
     the Commission's investigation, it canceled its agreement 
     with Abbott.
       The complaint alleges that Abbott's agreement with Geneva 
     had the ``purpose or effect, or the tendency or capacity'' to 
     restrain competition unreasonably and to injure competition 
     by preventing or discouraging the entry of competition into 
     the relevant market. As a result of the anticompetitive 
     behavior, the complaint alleges, the lower-priced generic 
     version of Hytrin was not made available to consumers, 
     pharmacies, hospitals, insurers, wholesalers, government 
     agencies, managed care organizations and others during the 
     time the agreement was in place.
       Entry by a generic competitor would have had a significant 
     procompetitive effect. The complaint alleges that the 
     agreement between Abbott and Geneva constituted an 
     unreasonable restraint of trade; that Abbott monopolized the 
     relevant market; that Abbott and Geneva conspired to 
     monopolize the relevant market; and that the acts and 
     practices are anticompetitive in nature and tendency and 
     constitute unfair methods of competition, all in violation of 
     Section 5.
     The proposed consent orders
       Under the terms of the proposed settlement, Abbott and 
     Geneva would be barred from entering into agreements pursuant 
     to which a first-filing generic company agrees with a 
     manufacturer of a branded drug that the generic company will 
     not (1) give up or transfer its exclusivity or (2) bring a 
     non-infringing drug to market. In addition, agreements 
     involving payments to a generic company to stay off the 
     market would have to be approved by the court when undertaken 
     during the pendency of patent litigation (with notice to the 
     Commission), and the companies would be required to give the 
     Commission 30 days' notice before entering into such 
     agreements in other contexts. In addition, Geneva would be 
     required to waive its right to a 180-day exclusivity period 
     for its generic terazosin HCL tablet product, so other 
     generic tablets could immediately enter the market.
       The proposed orders, which would expire in 10 years, also 
     contain certain reporting and other provisions designed to 
     help the Commission monitor compliance by the companies.
       The Commission vote to issue the administrative complaint 
     against Hoechst/Andrx was 5-0. The vote to accept the 
     proposed consent orders with Abbott and Geneva was 5-0.

[[Page 12661]]

       In a unanimous statement, the Commissioners said: ``These 
     consent orders represent the first resolution of an antitrust 
     challenge by the government to a private agreement whereby a 
     brand name drug company paid the first generic company that 
     sought FDA approval not to enter the market, and to retain 
     its 180-day period of market exclusivity. Because the 
     behavior occurred in the context of the complicated 
     provisions of the Hatch-Waxman Act, and because this is the 
     first government antitrust enforcement action in this area, 
     we believe the public interest is satisfied with orders that 
     regulate future conduct by the parties. We recognize that 
     there may be market settings in which similar but less 
     restrictive arrangements could be justified, and each case 
     must be examined with respect to its particular facts.
       ``We have today issued an administrative complaint against 
     two other pharmaceutical companies with respect to conduct 
     that is in some ways similar to the conduct addressed by 
     these consent orders. We anticipate that the development of a 
     full factual record in the administrative proceeding, as well 
     as the public comments on these consent orders, will help to 
     shape further the appropriate parameters of permissible 
     conduct in this area, and guide other companies and their 
     legal advisors.
       ``Pharmaceutical firms should now be on notice, however, 
     that arrangements comparable to those addressed in the 
     present consent orders can raise serious antitrust issues, 
     with a potential for serious consumer harm. Accordingly, in 
     the future, the Commission will consider its entire range of 
     remedies in connection with enforcement actions against such 
     arrangements, including possibly seeking disgorgement of 
     illegally obtained profits.''
       The Commission is accepting public comment on the consent 
     in the Abbott/Geneva matter until April 17, 2000, after which 
     it will decide whether to make it final. Comments should be 
     sent to the FTC, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania 
     Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580.

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Bentsen).
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, this is a particularly sad day for the 
House. My colleagues talked about this walk-out. The reason this man's 
portrait is on the wall right here is because they walked out on the 
British 224 years ago because they would not allow free and fair 
debate. Today we are not allowed free and fair debate on the floor.
  The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) just spoke about his 
opinion. The problem is that the Republicans are going to allow debate 
on only one opinion, that gentleman's opinion over there. We are going 
to take up a bill that one man has written, that the full House is not 
going to get to debate, that affects 39 million Americans and we are 
going to hide behind a phony debate, a phony argument, of a limitation 
in a budget resolution that the Republican leadership violates time and 
again; in fact, intends to violate later this week with a waiver on a 
bill dealing with doctors.
  They violated it on defense spending. Perhaps if we added an aircraft 
carrier to this, we might be able to get a real debate going on this 
issue.
  They violated it for highway construction. They violated it for 
agriculture. When it comes to senior citizens and whether or not we can 
have a fair, full and open debate on the question of what type of 
Medicare prescription drug coverage they ought to have, the Republicans 
who never wanted to do this in the first place say, no, we will have 
one issue on our bill alone, which the industry has already said will 
not work, but we will talk about nothing else because they are afraid, 
they are afraid, that too many of their Republicans may side with too 
many of the Democrats in putting a real prescription drug plan under 
Medicare; and we cannot allow that to happen because we lose the 
political advantage.
  Perhaps that is the unfair advantage that the gentlewoman from Ohio 
was talking about.
  Let us do what our forefathers intended us to do, the whole reason 
that we are on the House floor today. Let us have a full, fair and 
honest debate as Americans in the same way that the country was 
established 224 years ago and be done with this sham debate on this 
rule behind a phony argument of budget constraint that the Republicans 
have already violated this year, violated last year, will violate 
apparently later this week, and will violate for the rest of the year.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire as to whether the gentleman 
on the other side has a speaker on the floor at this point.
  Mr. GOSS. Actually, we have several very excellent speakers on the 
floor at this time; but I think that the balance of the time, if the 
gentleman wishes to go forward for the short yield, that would be fine 
with us.
  Mr. FROST. I would inquire of the Chair of the time remaining on each 
side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) has 
14\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) has 11 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. FROST. Does the gentleman still wish that we proceed?
  Mr. GOSS. I have no strong preference. We are prepared to proceed if 
the gentleman would like us to.
  Mr. FROST. The gentleman has more time available at this time.
  Mr. GOSS. I think I am detecting a suggestion that we proceed. In 
that case, I am most delighted to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), as part of a bipartisan spirit of 
unity.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I heard the words today too risky, too 
hasty, bad procedure, not enough money, bad for seniors, unfunded 
mandates, politics, empty promises, on and on. And once again, divide, 
confuse, obstruct, pit seniors against youth, management against labor, 
more and more class warfare in the House of Representatives.
  I think enough is enough, and I think it is time to tell it like it 
is today. The Democrats controlled Congress for 50 years. The Democrats 
never balanced the budget. The Democrats never did a thing about 
welfare. The Democrats never did a thing about prescription drugs. The 
Democrats never did a thing about IRS reform and how well I know, 
because for 12 years I tried to get the Democrats to take up the 
Traficant bill to change the burden of proof and to require judicial 
consent before the IRS can seize our property.
  The Democrats would not even hold a hearing. The Republicans not only 
had a hearing, they included the Traficant provisions in the bill, even 
though the Democrats were against it and the President threatened to 
veto it for the Traficant provisions.
  Now listen to the statistics, and I want to compliment the Republican 
Party. 1997 was the last year of the Democratic law; 1999 the first 
year of the Republican law. Attachment of wages, $3.1 million under the 
Democrats; $540,000 under the Republican reform. Property liens, 
$680,000 under the Democrats; $160,000 under the Republican reform. 
Seizure of our constituents' farms, businesses and homes, 10,037 under 
the Democrat law; only 161 under the Republican law.
  But that is not what bugs me today. JFK would have never walked out 
from a fight. Truman would have never walked up that aisle. Eisenhower 
would have never walked that aisle. Colin Powell would have resisted 
that aisle like he resisted America's enemies. Warriors do not walk 
out. I am disgusted today because we are not warriors. We walked away.
  I am going to vote for the rule. I am going to vote for the bill. Is 
it perfect? No. But what are the Republicans doing? What are they 
doing? They are giving us the first prescription drug opportunity to 
amend a great dilemma that as Democrats we have done nothing with. Now, 
ours is better. Bring a better one out, and I am going to vote for it; 
but I am going to vote for their bill because their bill is an 
incremental process step that can be perfected, made better.
  I want my constituents to have the benefit of a prescription drug 
plan that begins the process of mitigating and remediating this 
horrible problem; but I will say one thing, I did not walk out and I 
want to commend the Republican Party, the Speaker and the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Archer) for helping me in the IRS reform bill, and I 
want to commend the Republican Party for not only not walking out but 
standing here and bringing forward this bill; and I am going to vote 
for it.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Nevada (Ms. Berkley).
  Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule. 
This

[[Page 12662]]

rule does not allow us to consider the best prescription drug plan that 
we can offer our senior citizens. I represent the fastest-growing 
senior population in the United States. Not a day goes by that I do not 
receive a call from a frightened senior begging me to help them obtain 
affordable prescription medication; sharing their feelings of despair 
and worry; sharing their horror stories of having to choose between 
buying food to survive or medicine that will help them survive; of 
having to choose between paying their rent and purchasing their 
prescription medication.
  I have seen the Republican plan firsthand. The Nevada State 
legislature passed similar legislation over 13 months ago, relying on 
private insurance companies to provide drug coverage. To date, no 
insurance company, not one, has agreed to participate.
  My friends in Nevada are attempting to fix the program. They have the 
best of intentions, just like my friends across the aisle. But why in 
the world, when it is not yet functioning for the 223,000 seniors in 
Nevada, would we try to replicate it for the millions of seniors that 
are desperately in need of affordable prescription medication?
  I urge my colleagues to consider the Democratic alternative that 
would provide a comprehensive volunteer affordable prescription drug 
plan. Our parents and our grandparents are expecting better from us.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Goss) for yielding me this time. I too rise to join the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Traficant) and the other Democrats who are helping us pass 
and support this bipartisan bill. I am doing that in the name of some 
constituents of mine, Brian and Sue Doe in Vidalia, Georgia.
  Now Mr. Doe is retired from the police force, and Mrs. Doe is retired 
from the Piggly-Wiggly Grocery Store chain. They are on a fixed income, 
$20,000 a year. They do not know what procedural motions are, motions 
to rise, motions to adjourn. In fact, it would be funny for them to 
figure why would people who are paid $136,000 a year vote to adjourn 
and quit working at 11:00 in the morning. But that is Washington.
  Here is what they know, and here is what they are real experts on. On 
their fixed income they have to pay about $8,200 a year for 
prescription drugs, $8,200. Anything from Lipitor for his cholesterol 
to something for her heart murmur; and they know that these expensive 
drugs, this one right here at $10 a shot, that they have to take three 
or four times a week, they know under this plan, this bipartisan plan 
today, it will go down from $10 to about $6. They know that $8,200 a 
year will go down to $6,000; even more than that. They know that they 
will have the choice of plans. They know that this will not get in the 
way of their doctor relationship. They will still have a doctor-patient 
relationship, and they know they will be able to go to the neighborhood 
pharmacist still, and they think this is very important because they do 
not really want a one-size cookie cutter Washington bureaucracy getting 
into their drug cabinet and telling them how to live.
  It is very important for the Does in Vidalia, Georgia, for the folks 
in Savannah, Georgia, for the people in Miami, for the people in Maine, 
for the people in San Francisco. It is time to come together and put 
seniors over politics, and that is why I support this bill today.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the rule because this bill is a 
sham. It covers only the poorest senior citizens whose incomes place 
them near or below the poverty standard. It deliberately creates 
another division in America: us who are wealthy enough to take care of 
ourselves and them who are given a taxpayer handout because they are 
poor. In fact, the Republican plan is carefully designed to fail, not 
immediately, of course, certainly not before the November election. It 
is being polished to look like gold until after the election. But next 
year when everyone realizes this plan was virtually useless and 
worthless, fool's gold, that failure will be used as a spear to attack 
Medicare, the hammer the Republicans hope to use to privatize Medicare.
  That is the bottom line, privatization. Eliminate the Medicare 
program that provides universal, dependable, quality, guaranteed health 
insurance for every senior citizen by right of American citizenship. 
This bill is political chicanery at its very worst.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger), my friend and colleague.
  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I am a senior citizen. I actually am that 
proper age and have Medicare and each night I use Zocor and Cardura and 
Claritin D and Timoptin, but I pay for them myself. We in Congress earn 
over $130,000 per year. We should not receive government assistance. 
Let us help the poor who need it. The Democrat plan would take care of 
us, the Kennedys, the Houghtons and the Ballengers. We are too rich. We 
do not need it and nobody in Congress should get it, and yet the 
Democrat plan allows it.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. Wise).
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about the hundreds of thousands 
of rural West Virginians earning $12,000, $15,000 a year, sometimes 
less than that, and that is why I am voting for a bill, the substitute, 
that would extend the Medicare program as we already know it. We know 
it, it has worked, let us have a prescription drug benefit.
  I am voting against the Republican bill, however, that would simply 
put this into the hands of the private insurance agencies, private 
insurance industry that says they do not want it. It would put it into 
the hands of private HMOs that are not functioning in rural States.
  I am voting for a bill that would provide real prescription drug 
coverage. I will not vote for a bill that will deny almost 300,000 
senior citizens, many of them in rural areas, true coverage.
  At a time when senior citizens need real medicine, strong medicine, 
the Republican substitute unfortunately only gives them two aspirins 
and tells them to go home and forget about it. That is not what we 
ought to be doing here today.
  Mr. Speaker, we should have a real bill on the floor to provide the 
prescription drug benefits. I oppose the rule.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise my colleague, the 
distinguished gentleman from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (Mr. 
Moakley), that I have one speaker left besides myself to close.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Goss), I appreciate the warning.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the District of 
Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  The Republican majority touts their plan for offering people choices. 
Why do they not begin by giving us a choice of bills? It is unthinkable 
that seniors would buy into a plan that thrusts them further into the 
managed care and HMO market that today routinely is dumping them. It is 
unthinkable that we would commit scarce health care dollars to the 
costly, countless administrative structures of HMOs instead of relying 
on low costs, administrative efficiency built into Medicare.
  It is unthinkable that we would send our seniors to a private sector 
HMO party that private insurers say they will boycott. It is 
unthinkable that we would send seniors shopping among the chaos of 
premiums and deductibles and copayments, out there to snare even the 
most sophisticated.
  This rule gives seniors choices they cannot take and cannot afford. 
It gives them every choice, except the choice they must have, a choice 
between a cosmetic bill and one that works.

[[Page 12663]]


  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maine (Mr. Baldacci).
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule is a terrible rule. The rule does not 
recognize alternatives. It does not recognize the importance of this 
debate. For instance, in rural Maine, there is no private insurance 
market and no matter how high we pile the money, no one is going there 
to offer the care.
  We are going to be writing a check to the HMO insurance companies 
instead of providing universal voluntary and affordable coverage for 
Maine senior citizens. We have over 211,000 seniors in Maine on 
Medicare, over 15 percent, 16 percent of the State's population. They 
are dependent upon having the ability to have drug coverage and there 
is no private insurance market. They pay higher costs than urban or 
suburban areas.
  We need to make sure that it is part of the Medicare program and it 
is universal across the board. I have heard references here today about 
John Kennedy and Harry Truman. Let me tell my colleagues, I do not know 
them, but I have read about them, and if they were here, I am sure that 
they would be distressed about what is being passed by the Republican 
leadership in the House today.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a vote against this rule and for more common 
sense legislation.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Mrs. Thurman).
  Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding 
me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to say a couple of things. When I go home, I am 
an elected official, I represent Democrats, Republicans, and 
Independents. And what I heard from my constituents, and why we are 
protesting so loudly, is because there are Americans that are not being 
heard in this debate today.
  I just want to bring up a few of those. We have the Older Women 
League who says that they are a national grassroots membership 
organization focusing soley on issues unique to women as they age, 
there was a disappointment to see that the Republican prescription drug 
plan does not represent a defined benefit added to the Medicare program 
but rather a private insurance option.
  We can go on, and we can talk about the National Council of Senior 
Citizens. In short, the Republican RX 2000 Act is a fraud and a callous 
and partisan attempt to create the illusion of sensitivity to a 
desperate need of millions. It is based on private market plans in the 
face of massive withdrawals from Medicare coverage by health insurance 
industry.
  Then on top of that, my colleagues should hear the health care 
industry that they think is going to give them this insurance.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Moakley) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule and in opposition 
to the majority bill that is before us today. I believe that the bill 
before us is set up for failure, and it is set up for failure for one 
simple reason, they don't want to do it. I do not want to question the 
motives of the Republican leadership in offering this type of bill, but 
we do know the intent and motivation of the insurance industry that is 
being called upon to provide the drug-only insurance plan in order to 
make this bill work.
  They do not want to do it. In fact, in recent testimony by Charles 
Kahn III, President of the Health Insurance Association of America, 
before the Committee on Ways and Means earlier this month, he stated 
and I quote, the proposals we have examined that rely on stand-alone 
drug-only insurance policies simply would not work in practice. 
Designing a theoretical drug coverage model through legislative 
language does not guarantee that private insurers will develop the 
product in the market.
  Mr. Speaker, good things happen in this place when we come together 
and work in a bipartisan manner to deal with a serious yet complicated 
issue such as providing affordable drug coverage to seniors who need 
it. That process did not take place today. I think we need to go back 
to the drawing board and get it right.
  Providing affordable Medicare prescription drug coverage for our 
nation's seniors is one of the most pressing issues facing our country 
today. Even though the elderly use the most prescriptions, more than 75 
percent of seniors on Medicare lack reliable drug coverage. It is time 
to modernize Medicare to reflect our current health care delivery 
system. The use of prescription medications is as important today as 
the use of hospital beds was in 1965 when Medicare was created.
  I have heard from a number of seniors in western Wisconsin regarding 
the problems they have paying for prescription drugs. One woman from a 
small town in my district wrote to me and said:

       I am sending you my medicine receipts for the month of 
     March. Why doesn't Medicare cover the cost of these drugs? 
     This is more than I can handle on my Social Security income.

  Her monthly cost for prescription medicines is $382.13. That is a lot 
of money for a widow on a fixed income.
  Other seniors in my district are paying substantially higher medicine 
prices than pharmaceutical companies most favored customers, such as 
HMOs. A study conducted in my district found that price discrimination 
by pharmaceutical manufacturers is one of the principle causes of the 
high prescription medicine prices that confront seniors. Senior 
citizens who pay for their own drugs pay more than twice as much for 
drugs than do the pharmaceutical companies' most favored customers.
  Not only are my seniors facing price discrimination in their 
hometowns, but they can go to Canada and get the same medicine for a 
substantially cheaper price. For example, a senior in Rice Lake, 
Wisconsin pays $105 for a prescription of Zocor. If this senior makes 
the short trip to Canada, then she would only pay $59 for the Zocor 
prescription--a 129 percent difference. On average my constituents 
would pay about 80 percent less for their drugs in Canada than they do 
at home in western Wisconsin. That is wrong.
  The cost of prescription medicines should not place financial strains 
on seniors that would force them to choose between buying drugs and 
buying food. We need to make prescription medicines affordable and 
accessible to all of our seniors.
  Unfortunately, today's debate is a sham. We will not have the 
opportunity to discuss this issue in a fair and open process. The 
majority decided to railroad the debate and silence the minority by not 
allowing an alternative to be debated and voted upon. Our nation's 
seniors deserve better. They deserve an open process, but the 
Republican leadership has failed to deliver this.
  The leadership has also failed seniors with their prescription drug 
proposal. The Republican plan is doomed to fail because the plan relies 
on health insurance companies to offer drug only policies which they 
have said they won't offer. If insurance companies won't offer these 
policies, how will seniors actually obtain prescription drug coverage 
under the leadership plan?
  Every insurance company with whom I have spoken has said that they 
will not offer a drug-only insurance policy. In fact, in February, the 
Health Insurance Association of America, which consists of 294 
insurance companies, released a statement claiming, ``These `drug only' 
policies represent an empty promise to America's seniors. They are not 
workable or realistic.''
  Why should the insurance companies provide these drug only policies? 
They are in the business of insuring risk and there is no risk 
associated with a drug only policy because most seniors need 
prescription medications. This single benefit policy also will result 
in adverse risk selection--only people with predictably high 
prescription medicine costs will purchase the plan. This will increase 
the cost to the insurance companies who in turn will pass the costs on 
to the beneficiaries through higher premiums.
  In addition, under the Republican plan, there is no guarantee that 
seniors will have access to the specific drugs that they need. Plans 
may establish restrictive formularies and exclude medicines they don't 
want to cover. If a senior needs a drug the policy doesn't cover, then 
he must prove that other similar drugs have an adverse effect on him 
and go through the hoops of an uncertain appeals process just to get 
the drug he needs.
  We must provide a real solution to the problem of prescription drug 
coverage for our seniors. The Republican plan falls woefully short.

[[Page 12664]]

The Democratic proposal heads in the right direction and builds on the 
current Medicare program. Our plan would allow Medicare beneficiaries 
the choice of traditional Medicare or Medicare HMO with a defined 
benefit that would be available across the country. Further, seniors 
would have lower premiums and a lower catastrophic cap.
  Another issue our plan addresses is the regional disparities in 
Medicare reimbursement rates and payments. There are some seniors in 
select parts of the country that receive prescription drug coverage 
through Medicare+Choice plans, an HMO. Most seniors across the country, 
however, do not have this benefit. For example, the only 
Medicare+Choice plan in my district cannot afford to offer a drug 
benefit because of the low Medicare payment. Even though all seniors 
pay into the Medicare system, only a few receive the extra drug 
benefit. While both the Republican and Democratic proposals provide for 
some target relief such as increasing the minimum payment and moving 
faster to the 50/50 blend, the Democratic plan includes language that 
Congress will work to provide equal treatment for all seniors by not 
compounding the geographic disparities that unfairly penalize 
Medicare+Choice plans from doing business in low payment areas. The 
Republican plan is silent on this issue.
  It is unfortunate that the Republican leadership has squandered an 
excellent opportunity to try and solve the problem of prescription drug 
coverage in a bipartisan fashion. Instead they have steam-rolled ahead 
and presented our nation's seniors with an unworkable solution to a 
grave problem. I urge my colleagues to reject this flawed proposal.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Moakley) has 4 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) 
has 8 minutes remaining.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. I have one remaining speaker so the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Goss) may proceed.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I also have one remaining speaker other than 
myself to close.
  Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 5 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas), the author 
of the bill.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, today actually started in 1998, when, under 
the 1997 Balanced Budget Act, we created the Bipartisan Commission on 
Medicare. We knew that Medicare had to change, that prescription drugs 
had to be integrated into Medicare, that it was overdue. The bipartisan 
commission met for more than a year, and we came up with the proposal. 
That bipartisan effort has continued even though the commission ended.
  In January of this year, the President, in his budget, finally 
presented a prescription drug proposal on the administration's behalf. 
Remember, 1999, the bipartisan commission offered a proposal, then 
early this year, the President offered it.
  We have been working, on a bipartisan basis, to carry forward a plan 
to put prescription drugs in Medicare. Today we have that debate. Most 
of the discussion so far has been on the rule, that somehow when the 
bipartisan plan gets a vote and the Democratic plan gets a vote, that 
is unfair.
  Their argument is they cannot argue their issue. Every Democratic 
speaker that has gotten up to speak has condemned the bipartisan plan 
and praised theirs. There is an hour debate on the rule evenly divided. 
There is a 2-hour debate on the bill evenly divided. There is one vote 
for the bipartisan plan, and one vote for the Democratic plan.
  The reason the Democrats are upset is because it is not two bites of 
the apple for them and one bite for us. They say the bipartisan plan is 
not in Medicare. They say it is not guaranteed. That, in fact, it is a 
shame. Now, I could spend a lot of time arguing with my colleagues on 
the other side to tell them they are wrong. Do not let me make the 
argument. We will let Horace Deets, the executive director of the 
American Association for Retired Persons, make the argument, and what 
does he say, we are pleased that both bills include a voluntary 
prescription drug benefit in Medicare.
  If my colleagues are honest, they will not make that argument again. 
I quote from Horace Deets: ``Our plan and their plan puts it in 
Medicare. Further, both bills provide a benefit that would be available 
in either fee-for-service or managed care settings.'' They have made 
the argument. If they are honest, they will not make it again. It is 
available in fee-for-service, and managed. It is not just one area. Let 
us see if they are honest.
  He goes on to say, ``There are differences between both bills, but 
the core prescription drug benefit is in statute.'' It is not 
illusionary. My colleagues have made the argument that we are offering 
something that does not really exist. Horace Deets and the American 
Association of Retired Persons say the bipartisan plan is in statute. 
It is guaranteed. It is part of Medicare. It is available on a 
voluntary basis, and we can get it in fee-for-service or in managed 
care.
  I imagine that is going to require my colleagues to scratch out a lot 
of lines of their debate. Let us see if they scratch it out, so it is 
an honest debate or if they continue to repeat the untruths that Horace 
Deets shows are, in fact, untruths.
  Now, what is it the real debate is going to be? It is going to be 
this: The bipartisan plan offers choice. Their plan does not. We offer 
pocketbook protection now, seniors should not have to pay high costs.
  We incorporated it into the $40 billion, which was in the budget 
resolution, pocketbook protection for seniors now. Look at the 
Democratic plan. They matched the $40 billion over the first 5 years, 
the same as the bipartisan plan, but the Congressional Budget Office 
says over the next 5 years, it goes to $295 billion. Why? Because the 
pocketbook protection is not in the first 5 years, it is in the last 5 
years.
  They lose on that comparison. We have twice the savings that their 
plan has. The Congressional Budget Office certifies it. As we listen to 
this debate, just remember they get one vote, we get one vote. The time 
of the debate is evenly divided, they are making their points, we are 
making ours. The rule is fair. The question is will the debate be 
honest.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), our Democratic minority leader.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, this process, this rule is an outrage 
against the American people. It has been said that the Republican plan 
is a bipartisan plan. It is not a bipartisan plan.
  There has been no conversation about this plan and the putting 
together of the plan with the members of our Committee on Ways and 
Means. There has been no conversation between the leadership on either 
side about how we could build a bipartisan plan to add a prescription 
drug benefit to Medicare.
  This process is a grave disservice to all Americans. The debate is 
being shut down on the most important issue to American seniors since 
the creation of Medicare. The decision of the majority does more than 
deny the view of the Democratic minority to be heard, it denies the 
American people a vote on a plan that would provide real affordable, 
definable, and guaranteed prescription medicine benefits for America's 
seniors.
  This debate, like so many of the debates we have held in this 
Congress this year, is always my way or the highway.

                              {time}  1300

  Bipartisan is defined by: Are you for our partisan bill? Not: Can we 
work together to find real bipartisanship?
  I believe the other party is stooping to this level simply for 
politics. They are intent on passing anything that is called 
``prescription coverage'' in order to avoid the issue being raised in 
the November elections. It is the passage of a press release. It is the 
passage of a statement of intent. They want to ram through their bill 
and shut down debate so that the American people will not know what 
this sham bill really is. Their posters said it best when Glen Bolger 
told them, and I quote, ``It is more important to communicate that you 
have a plan than it is to communicate what is in the plan.'' This is a 
PR effort. It is a sham. It is a hoax. It is public relations. It is 
electioneering. It is not writing a plan that will help the American 
people.

[[Page 12665]]

  Mr. Speaker, instead of making prescriptions more affordable for 
seniors, they want to hand a huge subsidy to the insurance industry, 
which has said it will not write these plans. The head of the 
association came and said, we will not write these plans. Why will they 
not write these plans? They will not write them because this is not 
what insurance companies do. They underwrite risk. We have fire 
policies on our houses. Why? Because most houses do not burn down. The 
lucky people pay for the unlucky people. When we come to prescription 
drug benefits, everybody makes a claim, because everybody needs 
prescription drugs. It is a benefit, not an insurance plan. That is why 
the basic supposition of the Republican plan that they are going to 
turn this over to insurance companies is completely flawed, and 
completely wrong.
  Mr. Speaker, we believe this should be done through Medicare. We 
believe it should be affordable. We believe it should be definable. We 
feel it should be equal all over this country.
  What is really happening today is what really happened 35 years ago. 
This is the same debate we had over Medicare. The Republicans wanted to 
privatize Medicare; we wanted to have Medicare run through a Medicare 
system. They want to set up a new bureaucracy in the Government to run 
this program; we say we can run it through the Medicare system.
  Republicans have never believed in Medicare. As former Speaker 
Gingrich once said, ``Medicare would wither on the vine because we 
think people are voluntarily going to leave it.'' The majority leader 
once said, Medicare should not be part of our society. We should not 
have to be in this program.
  Mr. Speaker, I say to my friends in the Republican Party, that is an 
honest debate. If my colleagues want to get rid of Medicare, say so. If 
they want to privatize it, try to do so. But let us have an honest 
debate. Let us have real alternatives on the floor. Our plan is a real 
benefit, it is definable, it is affordable, it is equal for everybody 
in this country. It would have catastrophic coverage so that people 
over $4,000 a year of costs would have all of their Medicare costs 
picked up.
  I was in a press conference with seniors a few days ago. A woman who 
had a heart transplant got up and said her costs are $1,300 a month for 
her drugs. She said her Social Security benefit is $1,300 a month. And 
then she broke down and cried, because she could not figure out where 
the money to live on was going to come from.
  Mr. Speaker, we need a plan that offers a real benefit to people like 
that who right now in today's world are facing this problem. Vote 
against this rule, vote to defeat this plan, let us get back to writing 
a real bipartisan plan that will help the seniors citizens of this 
country.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I think it has all been pretty well said on this rule. Each side has 
had a bite of the apple and, as we can tell from the debate so far, 
there are different points of view on what is the best plan. They are 
both being aired, so those who would say there is no debate obviously 
would be incorrect. There is debate, and it is happening as we speak.
  One of the problems I think that we are facing today is, indeed, the 
emergence of partisan politics again. I think the record is fairly well 
clear, the public record, I think it is established that the minority 
leader's game plan, and it has been stated as such, is to ensure that 
this is a ``do-nothing Congress.'' On our side of the aisle, our 
leadership intends to ensure that we are a ``do the important American 
business Congress,'' the business of America that they want done; and 
that important thing that is called affordable prescription drugs for 
our seniors certainly falls on the list of important things to do. We 
are doing that. We are not walking out, and I am a little confused by 
the minority leader's comments about press conferences that he has been 
going to, because I understand that that is exactly what the 
instructions were this morning to the minority, was to get up en masse 
and walk out and attend a press conference on the east front steps of 
the Capitol which, in fact, we witnessed.
  I do not think that is the way to do the Nation's business. I realize 
we can get good sound bites at press conferences, but it does not get 
the hard work done, and we are here to do the hard work. I congratulate 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), and I congratulate those on 
the other side of the aisle who have participated in working with him 
to bring forward a bipartisan bill which provides affordable 
prescription drugs for seniors. That is what we are doing today; that 
is the important Nation's business. The rule is fair, each side gets a 
bite at the apple; and I believe that the Thomas bill, along with his 
colleagues on the other side, have come up with a good bipartisan plan 
which will bring affordable prescription relief for our seniors; and I 
think that will be a huge accomplishment, and it will be well received.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a yes vote on this rule.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong 
opposition to the rule which has a sole purpose of prohibiting 
Democrats from offering our prescription drug benefit plan, for which 
we have been advocating long before the majority realized that it is a 
``political imperative'', in this election year, to at least address 
the issue of prescription drugs.
  As one of the first to join the Democrats prescription drug bill, I 
have been a vociferous advocate for the need for real prescription drug 
coverage and not the type of ineffective coverage proposed by the 
majority.
  The Republican prescription drug plan is a political sham crafted to 
mislead America's seniors.
  It has been said, ``The healthy, the strong individual, is the one 
who asks for help when he needs it. Whether he has an abscess on his 
knee or in his soul.'' Our senior citizens are asking for our help to 
continue to live their lives as healthy individuals. It is time for us 
to answer this call, but the majority refuses to do so.
  If the majority were truly concerned about the needs of this nation's 
elderly and the disabled, then I ask them to allow alternative 
proposals to be offered, so that we can work together on both sides of 
the aisle, to benefit America's seniors and the disabled.
  This is an absolute travesty of the legislative process. The majority 
voted in the wee hours of the morning to prohibit any amendments to 
their supposed ``prescription drug'' proposal because they are more 
concerned about their political races, than about true prescription 
drug coverage.
  The drug plan introduced by the GOP will in no way guarantee access 
to coverage. Instead, this proposal allows plans to ration the 
prescription drugs available for coverage by limiting coverage to a 
specific list of drugs.
  Therefore, if a doctor prescribes a medication which they deem 
medically necessary, but is not on the list, then seniors will not 
receive coverage. To make matters worse, this bill would actually limit 
seniors' choice of drugs and pharmacies and raise cost for some seniors 
with medical problems.
  It is tragic that the majority truly believes that it can play games 
with the lives of this nation's seniors by attempting to disguise H.R. 
4680 as a prescription drug plan, when it is actually a meaningless 
proposal to advance special interests.
  Many senior citizens live on a limited, fixed income. The cost of 
prescription drugs is an important issue because senior citizens are 
more likely to suffer from chronic long-term illnesses, such as 
diabetes, high blood pressure, and Alzheimer's disease which require 
medication.
  Although prescription drugs are covered by most private insurance, 37 
percent of senior citizens do not have their own prescription drug 
coverage. The average senior citizen takes several medications a day 
(up to 30 prescriptions a year) and many of them pay for their own 
medications out of pocket.
  If the majority were truly concerned about providing prescription 
drug coverage, then H.R. 4680 would provide benefits everywhere in the 
United State and not limit it according to the plans the private 
insurance industry and pharmaceutical industry decide to offer.
  Currently, our nation's Medicare program provides vital health 
insurance for 39 million aged and disabled Americans.
  The Republican leadership has never supported the Medicare program; 
thus it is not surprising that their prescription drug bill fails to 
adequately address the concerns of those seniors and the disabled 
currently on Medicare. Democrat proposals better reflect senior 
citizen's concerns.
  It is clear the Republicans truly do not understand the needs of this 
nation's seniors

[[Page 12666]]

and the disabled on Medicare. Instead of providing the prescription 
drug benefit plan that they request, the majority instead asks 
Americans to ``trust the HMOs.''
  The Republican proposal fails to provide a single dollar directly to 
seniors or the disabled. Instead, they must rely on the private 
insurance industry that already fails to insure millions of this 
nation's population.
  The Republican plan does nothing to address the soaring price of 
prescription drugs. However, under the Democrat plan, the nation's 
seniors and the disabled are protected, allowing them to obtain their 
needed medications without worrying about whether this purchase will 
prohibit them for paying rent, purchasing food or other necessities.
  The facts are simple, Democrat proposals do more for seniors and the 
disabled. Democrat proposals provide comprehensive care for all of the 
nation's seniors and not just some.
  Mr. Speaker, I strenuously object to the imposition of a closed rule 
because we all know that H.R. 4680 is simply the latest attempt to 
appease the nation's seniors into believing that they will obtain 
comprehensive prescription drug coverage while actually providing them 
with an empty excuse for a prescription drug plan.
  Under H.R. 4680, it is the drug companies that benefit, not the 
nation's seniors. Yet, even these same insurance companies fail to 
believe that this proposal of a drug-only private insurance scheme will 
work in practice.
  Heads of top Insurance associations and companies like the Health 
Insurance Association of America, Mutual of Omaha, and even Blue Cross 
& Blue Shield believe that a private sector drug benefit provides a 
false hope to America's seniors because it is ``neither workable nor 
affordable.''
  In fact, the executive vice president of Mutual of Omaha Companies 
has stated ``I'm convinced that stand-alone drug policies won't work.
  The National Association of Chain Drug Stores strongly opposed H.R. 
4680 as do the United Auto Workers, the National Association of 
Manufacturers, the National Council of Senior Citizens, the Older 
Women's League, and even the American Association of People with 
Disabilities.
  All of these groups agree that what America's seniors need is a 
prescription drug bill with substantive protection and not simply empty 
rhetoric. Simply communicating the message that ``I have a plan,'' 
despite what pollsters say, is not what America needs.
  I stand in opposition to this rule and ask my colleagues to allow 
sincere measures to be offered on behalf of America's seniors. We need 
to invest in this nation's elderly who have contributed so much to the 
stability of this society. I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and 
the majority's attempt to deceive the American people.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on ordering the 
previous question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair announces that he will 
reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within which a vote 
by electronic device, if ordered, will be taken on the question of 
agreeing to the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 227, 
nays 204, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 347]

                               YEAS--227

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moakley
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--204

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

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Cook
     Markey
     Strickland
     Vento

                              {time}  1326

  Mr. SNYDER changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mrs. CUBIN and Mr. MOAKLEY changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

[[Page 12667]]




          Motion to Reconsider The Vote Offered By Mr. Moakley

  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Did the gentleman from 
Massachusetts vote on the prevailing side?
  Mr. MOAKLEY. I did, Mr. Speaker.


                 Motion to Table Offered by Mr. Dreier

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay on the table the motion to 
reconsider the vote.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) to lay on the table the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) to reconsider 
the vote.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 220, 
noes 205, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 348]

                               AYES--220

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--205

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

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Buyer
     Cook
     Gekas
     Goodlatte
     Hunter
     Markey
     Meeks (NY)
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Vento

                              {time}  1337

  Ms. WOOLSEY, Mr. DOGGETT, and Mr. McDERMOTT changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the motion to table was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 15-minute vote on the 
resolution, followed by a possible 5-minute vote on a question 
incidental thereto.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 216, 
noes 213, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 349]

                               AYES--216

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon

[[Page 12668]]


     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--213

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Sherman
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Cook
     Jones (NC)
     Markey
     Souder
     Strickland
     Vento

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California changed his vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Mr. WHITFIELD and Mr. MORAN of Kansas changed their vote from ``no'' 
to ``aye.''
  Mr. DeFAZIO changed his vote from ``present'' to ``no.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as aboved recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Without objection, a motion to 
reconsider is laid on the table.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.


           Motion to Reconsider the Vote Offered by Mr. Goss

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote.


                 Motion to Table Offered by Mr. Dreier

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the motion to reconsider on 
the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) to lay on the table the motion 
to reconsider the vote offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Goss).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 222, 
noes 204, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 350]

                               AYES--222

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--204

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard

[[Page 12669]]


     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Cook
     Edwards
     Franks (NJ)
     Gekas
     Goodling
     Markey
     Peterson (MN)
     Strickland
     Vento

                              {time}  1411

  Mr. SNYDER and Mr. WEYGAND changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the motion to table the motion to reconsider was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                          ____________________