[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 23]
[House]
[Pages 32099-32108]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE--CIRCUMVENTING THE WILL OF THE HOUSE BY HOLDING 
                 VOTES OPEN BEYOND A REASONABLE PERIOD

  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege of the 
House and submit a resolution which is at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the resolution.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                         Privileged Resolution

       Whereas on November 22nd, the Republican Leadership held 
     open the vote on rollcall No. 669 on H.R. 1, the Prescription 
     Drug Conference Report, for nearly three hours, the longest 
     period of time in the history of electronic voting in the 
     U.S. House of Representatives;
       Whereas the normal period of time for a recorded vote is 15 
     minutes, and the Speaker of the House reiterated that policy 
     on January 7, 2003 saying ``The Chair wishes to enunciate a 
     clear policy with respect to the conduct of electronic votes 
     . . . The Chair announced, and then strictly enforced, a 
     policy of closing electronic votes as soon as possible after 
     the guaranteed period of 15 minutes'', and in addition the 
     Speaker pro tempore on November 22nd announced prior to the 
     vote on Prescription Drugs that it would be a 15-minute vote;
       Whereas the amount of time for the vote on H.R. 1 went far 
     beyond anytime considered reasonable under established House 
     practices and customs, and was a deliberate attempt to 
     undermine the will of the House;
       Whereas the opponents of H.R. 1, both Republicans and 
     Democrats, were on the prevailing side for more than two and 
     one-half hours and proponents never once held the lead during 
     this period of time, and the sole purpose of holding this 
     vote open was to reverse the position that a majority of the 
     House of Representatives had already taken;
       Whereas, according to press reports, a Member of Congress 
     who is retiring was told on the House floor during this 
     extended vote that ``business interests would give his son

[[Page 32100]]

     (who seeks to replace him) $100,000 in return for his 
     father's vote. When he still declined, fellow Republican 
     House members told him they would make sure Brad Smith never 
     came to Congress'', and such an act is in violation of 
     Section 201 of Title 18 of the United States Code, which 
     prohibits bribery of public officials;
       Whereas these actions impugn the dignity and integrity of 
     House proceedings, bring dishonor on Members of Congress, and 
     were a gross violation of the rights of Members who opposed 
     this legislation: Therefore, be it
       Resolved, That the House denounces this action in the 
     strongest terms possible, rejects the practice of holding 
     votes open beyond a reasonable period of time for the sole 
     purpose of circumventing the will of the House, and directs 
     the Speaker to take such steps as necessary to prevent any 
     further abuse.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The resolution constitutes a question of the 
privileges of the House under rule IX.
  The minority leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), 
will be recognized for 30 minutes. It is the Chair's understanding that 
the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) will be the designee of 
the majority leader and will also be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), 
the minority leader.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, for more than 200 years, and 200 years ago, the Founding 
Fathers designed this House of Representatives to serve as the people's 
House. In the Federalist Papers, James Madison wrote that it is 
essential to liberty that this House have an intimate sympathy with the 
people. In the century since, this body has earned its status as the 
greatest legislative body in the world. Yet perhaps never before have 
the actions of this body fallen so far short of both the ideals 
envisioned by the Founders and the sympathies of the people as during 
last month's vote on the Medicare prescription drug conference report, 
a vote that will surely be remembered as one of the lowest moments in 
the history of this august institution.
  The American people expected a fair and open airing of issues 
affecting 40 million older Americans on Medicare, our mothers, our 
fathers, grandmothers, and grandfathers. Yet Republicans locked House 
Democrats out of the conference negotiations and, in doing so, locked 
out the 130 million Americans we represent.
  This is a diverse country, but the Democratic Caucus is the only 
diverse caucus. By shutting out the Democrats, they deny the conference 
negotiators of the benefit of the thinking of the representatives of 
the African American community, Hispanic community, the Asian Pacific 
American community, the whole philosophical diversity within our caucus 
from the Blue Dogs to the New Dogs to our Progressive Democrats.

                              {time}  1530

  The American people expected genuine debate. Yet, Republicans limited 
floor discussion on the one of the most dramatic changes to Medicare in 
its history to a mere 2 hours, 2 hours. And this behavior is not 
limited and confined to the vote on Medicare.
  For some reason, and I think it should be obvious what it is, the 
Republicans insist on having votes that are of great import to the 
American people, but where they are clearly on the wrong side of the 
issue, have these votes taken in the middle of the night.
  On a Friday in March at 2:54 a.m., the House cut veterans benefits by 
three votes. At 2:39 a.m. on a Friday in April, House Republicans 
slashed education and health care by five votes. At 1:56 a.m. on a 
Friday in May, the House passed the ``leave no millionaire behind'' tax 
cut bill by a handful of votes. And at 3:30 a.m. on a Friday in June, 
the House GOP passed the Medicare privatization and prescription drug 
bill by one vote. At 12:57 a.m. on a Friday in July, the House passed a 
Head Start bill by one single vote. And that Head Start bill was to 
undermine and unravel a very successful Head Start initiative. And then 
after returning from a summer recess, at 12:12 a.m. on a Friday in 
October, the House voted $87 billion for Iraq, an issue the Democrats 
and Republicans were on both sides of the issue. So were the American 
people. They deserve to hear the debate in the light of day.
  I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) for this information.
  It degrades our democracy when Democrats have no role in the 
legislation. This legislation affects millions of Americans. No role in 
the conference negotiations. No chance to offer amendments. No 
alternatives and limited debates or discussion. It degrades our 
democracy when secret negotiations, such as those on the energy 
legislation, rip up provisions supported by both Houses and insert new 
provisions approved by neither House.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not the House our Founders envisioned. Such 
behavior is unfair. It is un-American, and it is unacceptable. It is 
not for this that our Founding Fathers sacrificed their lives, their 
liberty and their sacred honor, so that we could have government of the 
few, by the few, for the few, behind closed doors.
  Why are the Republicans so afraid to subject their agenda to the 
normal rules of debate? Republicans are afraid of fair and open debate 
because they know that the American people reject their radical agenda. 
As President Kennedy said, ``A nation that is afraid to let its people 
judge the truth and falsehood in an open market, is a nation that is 
afraid of its people.''
  So afraid of the people were they that, again, this went into the 
dark of night when we even took the first vote at 3 o'clock in the 
morning.
  A member of the majority in the other body, that would be a 
Republican in the other party, warned recently, ``If you have to twist 
people's arms over and over to vote for you on issue after issue, then 
you would be wise to reevaluate your positions.''
  Of course, Republicans have no intention of reevaluating their 
reckless positions. As one newspaper editorial observed recently, ``It 
appears the Republicans want to govern the Nation by themselves.''
  A government of the few, by the few, for the few.
  The ancient Greeks had a word for such audacity, hubris. Hubris, the 
wanton arrogance that leads to the violation of accepted rules of 
conduct.
  In the tragedies of antiquity, mortals who defy the Gods in this 
manner were punished for their hubris. Indeed, if there were ever an 
argument for why Republicans must get their punishment at the polls and 
be defeated at the polls next year, we need only look to their 
unprecedented abuse of power and their neglect of the will of the 
people.
  Mr. Speaker, Democrats will not stand by while our democracy is 
denigrated. We will not be silenced. We will not be rolled over. As we 
preach democracy to the rest of the world and we talk about in glowing 
terms about our own democracy, we must also speak about the power of 
example, the example we set in the conduct of our legislative business 
for the rest of the world.
  The Republicans are not setting a good example of democracy for the 
rest of the world. Republicans must know we will fight this abuse in 
the committees. We will fight this abuse on the floor. We will fight it 
every day and every way we can. We will carry this fight all the way to 
election day. On that day, the American people will reject the 
Republican's special interest and their shameless abuse of power.
  With all regard that I have for the distinguished colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle who appear to be at the microphones, and I know 
that the time will be led by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. 
Johnson), why is not a member of this House leadership on the 
Republican side on the floor to respond to this privileged resolution 
about how the leadership has conducted its business?
  We all have a great deal of respect for the Speaker of the House. The 
majority leader is a forceful personality. The two of those 
orchestrated what happened that night. We would like them to at least 
extend the courtesy to Members to be present on the floor as the leader 
of this party on this floor to respond to the people's need to know as 
to why, why the will of the majority is not respected here.
  We will return the people's House to the American people, and we will 
once again make this the revered institution worthy of its status as 
the greatest legislative body in the world.

[[Page 32101]]

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) is the designee of the majority leader.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I regret that the gentlewoman does not consider me a 
forceful personality or a leader. But I am here to say that, as 
chairman of one of the major subcommittees that wrote this bill, I 
consider myself both a leader on Medicare modernization and reform and 
a forceful personality, because I am dedicated to this issue. I have 
worked hard on it. And I believe that I am better to be here than any 
of my leadership.
  This was a joint effort. It was late at night. No question. It was a 
long vote. And it did inconvenience Members. No question. But the 
stakes were very high. The need of America's seniors for prescription 
drugs and a modernized Medicare that could deliver state of the art 
disease management to help those with chronic illness prevent their 
diseases from progressing. Yes, their need was urgent and intense. The 
opportunity was enormous. We could not abandon our responsibility to 
pass real Medicare prescription drug reform and modernization of 
Medicare's ability to keep pace with quality health care initiatives. 
And so, yes, we allowed ourselves to be masters of time.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me time.
  I would like to pay respects to my California colleague, the very 
distinguished minority leader, and I certainly respect her right to 
come forward with this privileged resolution. I would also like to 
thank my friend, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), for 
the stellar leadership she has provided, ensuring that we would not 
only bring about reform of Medicare, but make sure that we are able to 
provide access for our seniors to affordable prescription drugs.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important to note a couple of items. 
First, on the 2nd of April, 1789, the day after the first Congress was 
put into place, James Madison who was, in fact, a member of that first 
Committee on Rules, and I believe that as he talked about what my 
friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) referred to, that 
intimate sympathy with the people, he did appropriately refer to the 
fact that this is the greatest deliberative body known to man. And we 
do have an extraordinary responsibility here to implement the will of 
the people through this structure we have of a representative 
democracy.
  Now, what I would like to say is that as we look back on that debate, 
that both of my friends, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) 
and the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) have just 
addressed, I think it is important to note that our friend, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) came before the Committee on 
Rules and made a request that we extend the time that is provided under 
the rules of the House for the debate of a conference report.
  Every single Member of this House is well aware of the fact that when 
a conference report is voted upon, there is a 1-hour provision for 
debate on that conference report. Now, request was made to extend that. 
And my friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), as she 
knows, made a rare appearance before the Committee on Rules and 
requested that we increase the amount of time for debate on that 
conference report. And in response to her request, the Committee on 
Rules chose to double the amount of time allowed for the conference 
report. That amount of time was granted.
  I think it is also important to note that the 15-minute provision 
according to clause 2(a) of rule XX, Mr. Speaker, specifically says the 
minimum time for a record vote or a quorum call by electronic device 
shall be 15 minutes. And so I think that there is no one who is 
claiming that there was a violation of the rules of the House because 
this was, in fact, in compliance with the rules of the House. And I 
think that there needs to be recognition that during that 2 hour and 50 
minute period a number of votes were changed. And I think it is 
important for the record to note for the record, Mr. Speaker, that the 
last three votes that were cast on that bill were, in fact, cast by 
members of the minority.
  I would like to thank my friend for yielding me this time. What I 
have simply chosen to do here, Mr. Speaker, is make the record clear as 
to exactly what the rules of the House consist of on this matter.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, since the distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
Rules is in the well, I just wish to mention one thing, because in my 
comments I read a litany of concerns about very important votes were 
won by a handful or fewer votes in the dark of night. One of these I 
did not mention was the rule on the FAA bill that came to the floor, 
and I would like to ask the gentleman if he is proud of the way the 
Committee on Rules conducted itself on the FAA bill where it burned the 
book on rule making in this House.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. PELOSI. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I would respond to my friend by saying that I made it 
very clear in the record, when our friends were before the Committee on 
Rules, that I believe that it was wrong for us to proceed with 
consideration of the FAA conference report in the manner in which we 
did proceed with. And I said there, and the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Oberstar) has recognized here on the floor that I said, we will do 
everything possible to ensure that that does not happen again. And the 
majority leader, in the colloquy that he had with the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) later that week, made it clear that he also wanted 
to ensure that it would not happen again.
  I appreciate my friend for bringing that issue to the forefront.
  Ms. PELOSI. Indeed, that rule was an abomination, and I am pleased 
that the gentleman recognizes that it was wrong.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Rangel), the distinguished ranking member on the Committee on Ways and 
Means.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I am really surprised that the eloquent 
chairman of the Committee on Rules with all of the power of words and 
influence he has, that after a seething attack on the majority, that he 
would come into the well and say, but it is all in the rules.
  What our leader is talking about is more important than the Medicare 
bill. She is talking about the civility in this House of 
Representatives. Every one of us here today are not here just because 
we are so bright and so intelligent. We are here because some group of 
Americans have thought that we would represent their interests. They 
were not talking about blacks and whites or Jews or gentiles or Asian 
Americans or Hispanics. They were talking about Representatives in the 
House of Representatives. And they invested in us the right to make 
judgments as to what would be in their best interest.
  How in the world can you come to this floor and take this privilege 
which has been given to us to protect, not for ourselves but for the 
next group that will inherit the seats that we are privileged to serve 
in, and to say when the Speaker of this great House of Representatives, 
here where we truly represent the people, it is not based on every 
district being entitled to something because it is a State, it means 
that they come together. They fight. They argue. And they elect.

                              {time}  1545

  And then the Speaker decides who would be appointed to serve on the 
conference committee so that our voices would be heard with that of the 
other body. And when you have the votes, you have the votes; and that 
is the way it goes. If you do not like it, wait until November and then 
change it. But the audacity of the majority to say that

[[Page 32102]]

when the Speaker appoints you to the conference it makes no difference 
what rank you are, it makes no difference if you are the dean of the 
House, it makes no difference if you are the senior member of the 
committee of jurisdiction, it makes no difference if the minority 
leader appoints you to represent, who, us? No, to represent the 
millions of people that we have been sent here to represent.
  And to have the conference committee, to call it a bipartisan 
conference when they from time to time will let a staff person come in, 
is not only arrogance but it offends the very office of the 
Constitution to be able to say it. Now, I have the utmost respect for 
the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) because she has said it 
right; she thought this precious bill was so important that the rules 
did not matter. It had to go through the middle of the night, whether 
there was a conference or not. We had to get this thing through.
  Sure, my colleagues had to get it through because there was a goal 
beyond prescription drugs. And if that is what you want to do with 
Social Security, if that is what you want to do with health care, I can 
understand that; and that is why I am not a Republican. But for God's 
sake, do not disrupt the system. Do not tear away what was left to us. 
When you got the votes, by golly, use those votes and do what you want 
to do to your own Members; that does not offend me. But it does offend 
me if newer Members of Congress believe that is the way this House is 
supposed to operate.
  Sometimes when I go on the other side and I sit with a friend that 
came here many, many years ago when I did, young Democratic Members 
say, what are you talking to them for? And I suspect that some of the 
Republicans that have been here a little while, when they come over 
here, some of the younger Republican Members would say, why are you 
talking to a Democrat? And what we would say is, we are talking about 
our kids or we are talking about our grandkids. We will fight in the 
committee and we will fight on the floor, but we respect each other.
  It is a lack of respect not to me, you can look at me and know how 
many doors have been closed to me; it does not even bother me. Because 
in this great country, in this Republic, I can fight and I can win. But 
when you stack the rules against those who follow me and those who 
respect this institution; when you start saying it makes no difference 
who the Speaker assigns to a conference, because we decided that it is 
too important for us to let Democrats in, well, take a look and see who 
the Democrats are. Take a look at the diversity on this side. We did 
not make it this way. Democrats did.
  Do you think there is a Republican way for solid health care? Do you 
think there is a Republican way for Social Security? A Republican way 
for a better America? Of course not. It is for us together to be 
working together to try to do it. Would Democrats have contaminated the 
precious bill, I ask the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson)? 
Would we have diverted so much attention for what you were doing, this 
brilliant piece of work that you did in the darkness of night, brought 
here early in the morning to have us out here waiting until you could 
scrub up enough votes?
  It was wrong for this Congress, and it would be wrong for any 
Congress.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume, and I would respond to the gentleman from New York that 
I do think it is extremely important when half the women, retired 
women, in America have the opportunity for the peace of mind of knowing 
that they will pay no more than $1 or $2 for a generic and $3 to $5 for 
a brand-name prescription and that is all, no matter how many or how 
high their drug bills go. Yes, I think it is very important not to let 
the clock outweigh the interest of half of America's retired senior 
women.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Tauzin), the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut for 
yielding me this time; and, Mr. Speaker, let me first say that this has 
been a multiyear process. When we began our work in the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce, we entitled it Patients First, because essentially 
we wanted to make sure everything we did in the health care agenda 
thought about patients and did what we could to make patients' lives 
better in this country.
  I recall when we got to the point where we began drafting and working 
on the Medicare prescription drug bill, when we talked across the 
aisle, as we often do in the Committee on Energy and Commerce, about 
whether we could build a consensus bill at the committee level or not, 
it was pretty clear that we could not; that there was a great 
difference of opinion as to how to shape Medicare reform and 
prescription drug legislation. And because there was this huge great 
difference of opinion, the ranking Democrat, my friend, the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), and I agreed we would have a great debate, 
and we did. We had many, many hours of debate. We had a 23-hour markup; 
23 hours of markup and amendments that went on for a huge amount of 
time. And that literally, finally produced the Medicare bill that came 
to the floor along with the Committee on Ways and Means effort that 
became part of the conference report that we voted on.
  This was not a one-night effort. This was not a 3\1/2\ hour effort in 
the middle of the evening. This was a multiyear, very greatly debated 
issue from top to bottom where we were deeply separated on approach. 
And I think my mother summed it up best when I talked to her about it 
after we passed the bill. The approach that we took, that we understand 
some of the other side did not agree with, and that is a legitimate 
difference of opinion, the approach we took was that we ought to 
empower seniors to make choices for themselves about how they got 
prescription drug coverage; to make choices for themselves about how 
the health care that they would need in their senior years would be 
delivered to them and how they would take this new benefit.
  There were those on the other side who thought there ought to be one 
choice only, the Medicare choice. There were those on this side, on our 
side of the aisle, who believed that Medicare choice ought to be 
available, and we made sure that it is available, but other choices 
ought to come.
  Now, that is what happened. We can argue about process and procedure 
all we want. The bottom line is we were separated by a great division, 
it was settled, and the American public are better for it.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
note that it is interesting to hear Republican colleagues talk about 
how urgent this bill was to pass. Then why does it not become effective 
until 2006? Mr. Speaker, was it so urgent that the rumor had to be 
around there that they were offering $100,000 to Members to vote with 
them on the bill? Was it ever that urgent?
  Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 7 minutes to the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our very distinguished whip, a champion for 
America's seniors, who fought, fought, fought for them on the floor of 
this House to defeat this Medicare bill. And defeat it he did, for 3 
hours, until outside influences weighed in to reverse that outcome.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the minority leader for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Speaker, there are many of my colleagues who are new to this 
House and who do not know its history and do not know perhaps the words 
of your side of the aisle. So I want to give you a little history. I 
want to take you back to October 28, 1987. The House was considering a 
controversial Democratic budget reconciliation bill, which I tell the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut that we thought was very important. The 
vote stood at 206 to 205. Twenty-four Members had not voted.
  The Speaker of the House, in attempting to pass what he believed to 
be a very important bill, kept the clock going for less than 30 
minutes, a little more than 25; and a vote changed, and we prevailed. 
Your side was outraged.

[[Page 32103]]

Let me remind you of some of the quotes.
  I am the minority leader. Excuse me, I am the minority whip. I 
understand that. The minority whip at that time is now the Vice 
President of the United States, Dick Cheney. He was angry. The vote was 
206 to 205. This bill, for over 2 hours, had an absolute majority of 
the House of Representatives supporting it, with 218 Members opposing 
the bill, the proposition that we fought for.
  Thirty minutes. And here is what Mr. Cheney said about keeping the 
ballot open: ``The Democrats' tactics are the most grievous insult 
inflicted on the Republicans in my time in the House.'' October 1987. 
He was quoted as saying something else. ``It was,'' he said, ``the most 
arrogant, heavy-handed abuse of power I have ever seen in the 10 years 
I have been here.''
  Less than 30 minutes, 206 to 205. The Vice President of the United 
States. The most arrogant abuse of power he had seen. And then the 
Republican minority whip referred to the Speaker as follows, and 
listen, my colleagues, particularly those who are new. Referring to the 
Speaker of the House, he said, ``He's a heavy-handed,'' and he used an 
epithet that we know as SOB, except he fully articulated it, ``and he 
doesn't know any other way to operate. And he will do anything he can 
to win at any price. There is no sense of comity left,'' said Dick 
Cheney.
  I tell the gentlewoman from Connecticut, this was an important bill, 
but so was the bill that Speaker Wright was following and trying to 
pass. Dick Cheney, with less than 30 minutes, ``There is no comity 
left. The most heavy-handed arrogant abuse of power.''
  That is what this is about, treating one another with respect and 
treating the American public with respect. My colleagues had an 
opportunity to offer their bill. It was offered, we voted on it; and 
218 people voted no, and they stuck no for over 2 hours. But my 
colleagues refused to accept the judgment of democracy. You refused to 
accept the judgment of this House.
  Bob Walker said, ``We found out the majority is perfectly willing to 
change its rules to crush the minority.'' I know this is not a rule, I 
say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier); but I also know that 
at the beginning of this session, the Speaker, whom I respect and would 
never demean by addressing him in the terms that Dick Cheney addressed 
our Speaker, this House's Speaker, said this at the beginning of this 
session: ``The Speaker's policy announced on January 4, 1995, will 
continue through the 108th Congress.'' That was Newt Gingrich.
  On that occasion, referring to October 30, 1991, the House was 
considering a bill in the Committee of the Whole under a special rule 
that placed an overall time limit on the amendment process. We did it 
in 15 minutes. The Speaker concluded at the beginning of this session, 
``Each occupant of the Chair will have the full support of the Speaker 
in striving to close each electronic vote at the earliest 
opportunity.'' In this instance it was almost 3 hours. Not 15 minutes, 
not 17 minutes, not 27 minutes, but 3 hours.
  ``I just want to serve notice,'' this gentleman said, ``if the 
majority, which clearly has the rights under sheer voting power, 
insists on stripping the right away from the minority, then we have an 
absolute obligation to take the necessary steps to communicate our 
dissatisfaction with that kind of legislative process and do everything 
possible to stop it.'' Newt Gingrich, August 5, 1991.

                              {time}  1600

  Those of you who are new to this House who believe in democracy, who 
believe that this is the people's House, ought to accord to every one 
of us, Democrats and Republicans, the respect due a person chosen to 
represent 650,000-plus Americans in this House, to put up our votes on 
that board, to have the majority prevail, but to have them prevail in a 
time frame that does not, as Mr. Cheney referred to it, reflect ``the 
most arrogant, most heavy-handed abuse of power I have ever seen in my 
10 years.''
  My Republican friends, let me ask something: If keeping the ballot 
open for 25 minutes is the most arrogant abuse of power that Mr. Cheney 
had ever seen, what is keeping it open 3 hours? Ask yourself that 
question, and then understand why this resolution is on this floor.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood).
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
this time.
  About 5 hours ago, I had what I consider to be one of the greatest 
moments of my 11-year congressional career as I got to watch the 
President of the United States sign into law a Medicare reform bill 
that will finally provide a prescription drug benefit to our seniors 
and our disabled.
  For 38 years, every Congress, Republican, Democrat, every 
administration, Republican, Democrat, had failed to accomplish this. It 
was not because most Members of Congress did not want to do it. I dare 
say every single Democrat sitting in this House and serving in this 
House wanted to make sure that we got a prescription drug benefit 
delivered to our elderly and our disabled, and most Republicans wanted 
to do it for many years. And why did Congress fail year after year? Not 
because of lack of desire to get the job done, but because the job is 
extraordinarily difficult.
  It is extraordinarily difficult to craft a bill that is conservative 
enough to get most Republicans and liberal enough to attract some 
Democrats. It is very, very hard to do. We had to thread a needle, we 
had to say to the liberal-most Members of Congress, we cannot make you 
happy, we cannot spend that much money. And we had to say to the most 
conservative Members of our party, we cannot make you happy. We had to 
say we are going to do this entitlement, we are going to expand this 
entitlement, and it is not going to make you happy. We had to thread 
the needle, and the eye of the needle in this case was so narrow and 
the size of what we were trying to accomplish so large that yes, it 
took us an extraordinary amount of time to get this vote done.
  The Speaker did not violate a rule of the House. The Speaker is 
entitled to take as much time as he wishes for a vote. And in this 
case, in this case, the stakes were high, the cause was great. The 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) said she will take this 
message to the election. This is an election-year issue. I say to the 
gentlewoman, take that message; we will take the message that we 
provided seniors a benefit.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, if it is an election-year issue and the other side of 
the aisle is so proud of their work, why do they not make it effective 
now, just as they make their reckless tax cuts effective immediately 
and retroactively?
  Mr. Speaker, the customs and traditions of this House have been 
violated, and there is no person in the leadership of this House to 
come here to defend the actions taken in this Chamber on November 22. I 
will say more about that in a moment.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Clyburn), the vice chairman of the House Democratic Caucus.
  Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
this time, and I thank her for her leadership on this and other issues 
in this great body.
  Mr. Speaker, I was elected 11 years ago. Today I represent a 
congressional district of 668,000 people. It is an interesting 
congressional district, about half and half urban and rural. There are 
people who run the gamut. I represent the poor precincts and census 
tracts in the congressional district, and I also represent some of the 
wealthiest.
  Last week when I went back home after our Medicare prescription drug 
vote, and I was asked questions by my constituents, they were asking me 
things like is it true that in this prescription drug bill the 
Secretary of HHS is prevented from negotiating on

[[Page 32104]]

my behalf for lower drug costs? And, of course, I answered them, That 
is my understanding of the bill. And they have been asking, Is it true 
that I cannot use my Medigap insurance to cover any shortfalls that may 
come as a result of prescription drug costs? And, of course, I answered 
them, It is my understanding that that is true.
  And then they want to know from me, Why is it that I did not hear 
from you about the possibility of these issues before you cast a vote? 
You are there to represent my interests, and I would like to hear from 
you about these kinds of things before they come to a vote.
  Then I was obliged to tell them that the bill was completed around 
1:30 a.m. in the morning, and I was given less than a day to take a 
look at it, and we finally voted on this after they had gone to bed the 
next night around 3 a.m. in the morning. Then they want to know the 
ultimate: If this bill is not to be effective until 2006, what was the 
rush? What was the rush? There is no good answer for many of us to that 
question.
  I just want to say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, I am 
the eldest son of a fundamentalist minister who taught me that it is 
important to maintain balance in one's life, as well as one's efforts. 
He taught me to be conservative. He said to me very often, if you make 
a dollar, you ought to be able to save a nickel. He taught me when you 
leave a room, you turn out the light, you conserve energy. But he also 
taught me from those Sunday mornings when he stood before his 
congregation and asked for an offering, he asked them to give 
liberally. And so I learned that we must balance our liberalism with 
conservatism, and our conservatism with liberalism, and with proper 
balance and proper discussions, with proper input from all sides, we 
will yield much better legislation and much better results. We did not 
have that opportunity with this bill to have input from all sides to 
try to get a better and more balanced result.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that the failure on the part of this body to 
do that sets us up, as the gentlewoman has said, for a very interesting 
election year, and I am hopeful that this legislation will become the 
centerpiece of our discussions next year because then we will have a 
better result.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, it is because we felt the urgency of the need the 
preceding Member alluded to so eloquently, that not only did we have to 
pass this bill, but we had included in this bill a discount card that 
will mean that one-half of all low-income seniors all across America 
will get 100 percent of their drugs paid for in 6 months. There is 
urgency for this bill because the need for the subsidies are so great, 
and because of the average spending, we know that within 6 months, one-
half of low-income seniors will be 100 percent protected.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Shaw), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means and chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Social Security.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the minority leader, who has 
pounded on that 2006 date several times, every one of the Democrat 
bills that was out there had that same date. Why does it have that 
date? It has that date because it takes that long to gear up in order 
to get a bill moving, whether the Democratic bill or the Republican 
bill.
  What is the urgency? I think the gentlewoman from Connecticut pointed 
this out, and that is within 6 months, low-income people are going to 
be getting a card that will help them.
  This morning when the President signed this bill, he said this bill 
is going to help those who need help the most. That is exactly what it 
does. That is exactly what it does. That is the way it ought to be.
  When one goes into a court of law, a court of equity, there is an 
expression, to seek equity, you must do equity. In other words, you 
have to go into court with clean hands. We have heard during this 
debate such terms as representing their constituents, neglecting the 
will of the people, and abuse of office. They have to come here with 
clean hands if they are to complain.
  Did not the minority leader threaten their Members? Why was it one of 
the Members on the other side of the aisle who was holding out for 3 
hours was completely surrounded every single moment by Members of the 
Democratic Party because he had not yet voted? Why is it that after the 
time was finally called, four Democrat Members came down to the well of 
the House and changed their vote?
  If you want equity, you have to come with clean hands, and that was 
not done. We should have passed this bill last year, but the other body 
refused to take it up because it was under Democratic leadership.
  What is the urgency of this bill? If one is a senior, poor, or if you 
have huge drug expenses and you cannot afford to buy your drugs, by God 
to that person it is urgent. It is urgent. I would have stayed here 2 
or 3 more days if the clock was to be left open, because that is 
exactly how I felt. I felt this was so important to those people who 
desperately need this coverage.
  I would guess we would have won way over the top within 15 minutes if 
the minority leader had simply told her Members, you are free on this 
vote, come here and represent the people, vote for the people, and the 
gentlewoman's very words, vote for those you represent. That is what we 
want. That is what we should have gotten; and if we had, we would have 
been out of here at 3:15, and that is the way it should have been.
  I praise the Speaker and those of our leadership who kept the clock 
open. I understand why those who tried to suppress the vote on their 
own side and failed are upset. And it did take 3 hours to enlighten 
some of the Members; but it is important that Democrats came back and 
changed their vote also.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).
  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I have been in this House a 
little over 5 years, and we have managed three times in the House of 
Representatives to pass a prescription drug bill.
  Finally, this year the Senate passed a bill, too, which gave us a 
historic opportunity to provide a desperately-needed benefit for the 
people that I represent, and the people that we all represent.

                              {time}  1615

  The truth is that Medicare is stuck in a 1960s model of health care, 
a system that will pay claims instead of improve the quality of 
people's health. We have a health care system that had to be changed 
because it will pay $28,000 to amputate the feet of a diabetic and will 
not pay $29.95 a month for the Glucophage so that they can keep their 
feet. This system needed reform desperately because the people who rely 
on it need that medicine. That meant that we had to work hard to find 
the common ground that could make it through the House and the Senate.
  But it was about time. It was about time for a voluntary prescription 
drug benefit added to Medicare, supported by dozens of interest groups 
in this country, to provide some equity and some help, particularly to 
low-income folks who cannot afford their medicine and those who are 
very sick. That is what we did. This House as a whole and this 
institution will look back on this day when the President of the United 
States signed that bill as a tremendous change for health care for 
seniors in this country, and I thank God for it.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
  Mr. GINGREY. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to remind my colleagues from the other side of 
the aisle that just as in childbirth, our labors in the Congress often 
start in the morning sunshine and after long hours

[[Page 32105]]

of painful work in the full light of day then result in a delivery of a 
beautiful baby in the dark of night. Had this debate commenced in the 
dark of night, then the delivery would no doubt have been in the light 
of day.
  In any regard, Mr. Speaker, in passage of the Medicare Modernization 
and Prescription Drug Act of 2003, this President and the leadership of 
this House have delivered on a promise made to our beloved seniors. 
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, we, the Republican majority, are the promise 
keepers on this issue. I am proud to have voted as a physician Member 
of this body in the affirmative.
  The gentleman from South Carolina talked about hearing from his 
constituents. Mr. Speaker, I have heard from my constituents as well, 
things like is it true that in this bill the neediest of our seniors, 
those who are living at or near the poverty level, are helped the most? 
Is it true that the new Medicare beneficiaries will begin to receive 
for the first time ever a complete physical examination? Is it true 
that in order to help save Medicare for our children and grandchildren, 
the wealthiest seniors will have to pay for the first time more of 
their part B premium? And finally, Mr. Speaker, is it true that it has 
taken 38 years to finally provide seniors with prescription drug 
coverage?
  I answer to those seniors a resounding guilty as charged. I am proud 
of this bill. I thank the gentlewoman for giving me the opportunity to 
speak.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the very 
distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the majority party is running 
the Congress the way the Russians run basketball. You remember in 1972 
in the Olympic championship in Munich where Americans won the game. We 
were ahead when the game was over and the clock had run down to zero. 
But then the Russians prevailed on saying, let's just put a little more 
time back on the clock. Just like the Republicans when this clock ran 
down to zero said, let's just put another 3 hours back down on the 
clock. When they asked the Russian coach how he could justify that 
outrage, he said, because it was an important game and we wanted to 
win. That is the explanation we get from the majority party when you 
corrupted the basic values of this House.
  We have been searching for ways to describe this and you can say 
disappointing, you can say belittling; but the honest thing is it is a 
corruption of the traditions of this House, and it stinks to high 
heaven like a mackerel in the moonlight. Your Members need to come to 
the floor and explain this situation that not only were we violating 
the rules and the traditions regarding time, but that potentially there 
was bribery on the floor of this House. We need to get to the bottom of 
this and end this tyranny and corruption.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans also run this Congress like 
the Republicans run Florida. They cannot accept the result of a vote.
  With that, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, the 3-hour wheel of fortune that we 
witnessed the other day is reflective of the 3-week wheel of fortune, 
where the public interest and the public trust had been turned into a 
piggy bank for the special interests. There are 635 pharmaceutical 
industry lobbyists, a lobbyist and a half for every Member of Congress. 
If you walked down the hall, they were usually your shadow in this 
place. The reason we are talking about the process today is because the 
process was reflective of the policy and what happened and produced in 
this legislation, that is, the pharmaceutical industry when it came to 
dealing with the issue of price and affordability of prescription 
drugs, the will of the pharmaceutical industry was reflected but not 
the will of either our taxpayers or our senior citizens who are being 
forced into a system that requires that they pay 40 percent more than 
anybody in Canada and Europe.
  What we can do for our veterans, we can do for our seniors and get 
them to use bulk negotiations, which is a free market. Everybody on 
this side always says, I wish the government would act more like a 
business. We try to get it to act like a business, and what do you do? 
You turn your back on it. We can use either way to affect the price 
here.
  This is a debate that has now taken the public interest and the 
public trust and has turned it into a piggy bank for the special 
interests.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Ferguson).
  Mr. FERGUSON. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, today was a historic day. The gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) mentioned earlier that President Bush 
signed into law the most sweeping improvements that our Medicare 
program has seen in almost 40 years. Soon, because of this legislation, 
millions of seniors will be able to afford the prescription medications 
which will dramatically change, improve, yes, and sometimes even save 
their lives. We should celebrate today that this bill has been signed 
into law and that finally after years of inaction and obstruction, the 
leadership of this Republican majority and the several thoughtful 
Democrats who joined us have kept our promise to our seniors.
  But on this historic day, instead of high-minded debate and 
additional work to benefit our seniors and other Americans, what do we 
hear from some Members of this body? We hear complaining. We hear 
complaining because of an inconvenience. It would be an understatement 
to say that an elderly person who relies on their prescription 
medications struggles as they try to work through chemotherapy 
treatment for cancer. Similarly, one could say that it is a big 
inconvenience for a low-income senior who has to make decisions each 
month as to whether they will buy their prescription medication or buy 
their groceries. Indeed, I think each one of us would agree that it is 
inconvenient, really inconvenient for the 70-year-old woman who works 
not because she chooses to but because she cannot afford to retire and 
she continues to work because she needs to pay for her diabetes 
medication.
  Yet the complaint today is not that rules were broken because, of 
course, we followed the rules of this House. But now what we hear is 
that it was inconvenient for us to be here working through the night, 
to be voting until almost 6 a.m. and to stay up all night. And, of 
course, it is inconvenient for us to do so. It is inconvenient to work 
all night. It is really inconvenient, of course, to lose a vote on a 
major piece of legislation. But I think it was worth some of the 
inconvenience on our part. I think it was worth some of the 
inconvenience to help some of the neediest and indeed some of the most 
vulnerable in our society, older Americans who have worked hard and who 
have sacrificed and who have paid their taxes and paid their dues and 
made sacrifices to create opportunities for every single one of us. Is 
it not worth a little bit of inconvenience for us to keep our promises 
to them? Inconvenient for us, yes. But is it worth it to keep our 
promises to our seniors? I say yes.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
for yielding me this time. I, having been a minority leader in the 
Georgia legislature for a long time, understand that role. But I have 
to clarify the opening remarks that were made by the leader from my 
perspective about the time, about the hours of the night and about the 
comment; and I think I have got it about right, that in the dark of 
night we passed legislation that benefited a few, referring, I think, 
to the tax legislation in the past.
  Mr. Speaker, at 12:12, 12:15, 2:45, 3 a.m., and 6:45 in the morning, 
any morning, fishermen leave the wharves of San Francisco, California, 
to go fish for a living and pay taxes. In the district of the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Rangel), in the garment district they work in those 
hours for the prime time of the evening to feed their families and pay 
taxes. In every one of our districts in those hours of the dark of

[[Page 32106]]

night, Americans who finance this country and run it work doing an 
important job.
  I will submit to you, if you ask them, reforming a Medicare system is 
important. I think if you asked them if dealing with prescription drugs 
for their parents and their seniors is important, they would tell you. 
I do not think any one of us on the campaign trail would ever belittle 
a fisherman at 6:45 on San Francisco's wharf or someone in the garment 
district of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). We can have our 
partisan arguments over procedure, but let us not ever belittle hard 
work for a good purpose because it is the American people that do that 
on the night shift every night that finance this country and allow you 
and I to be here.
  I am proud to have stood up to cut their taxes and provide benefits 
to their parents.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a great day for America. The American people are 
celebrating today because the President has signed into law one of the 
most, if not the most, dramatic improvements to the Medicare program 
since its inception. Finally, Mr. Speaker, seniors across this country 
will have an option of a prescription drug benefit. Finally, Mr. 
Speaker, seniors will be given a choice in designing and selecting a 
benefit of health care delivery under Medicare. And finally, Mr. 
Speaker, American families across this country will be able to benefit 
from health savings accounts, providing them an environment and 
incentive to save for their own family's health care needs in a tax-
free environment.
  No, Mr. Speaker, this is not about a system that is broken or a 
process that has gone awry. This debate today on the floor is about a 
Republican success, of a vision of how to improve health care for our 
senior citizens across this great Nation. This bill is about doing what 
is best for our constituents, in particular, our seniors, Mr. Speaker. 
America's largest senior advocacy group, the AARP, has endorsed this 
bill because it sees this bill as a way to move us forward and to bring 
Medicare into the modern era and provide our seniors with a greater 
health benefit.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. Speaker, it is Republican-led policies that move this Nation 
forward today, not Democrat politics that we are witnessing on the 
floor this evening.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
his eloquent remarks.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the very distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez).
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, when I came here in 1993, the Republican 
majority, then the Republican minority, spoke about a balanced budget 
amendment and that we had to balance the budget not on the backs of 
future generations. We no longer hear about a balanced budget 
amendment. They came and they said if they would become the majority 
that we would have term limits so that Members of Congress could be 
people legislators and not stay here all of their lives. They no longer 
talk about term limits.
  But astonishingly that night, I could understand those changes. 
Philosophically and politically they changed their mind and said it was 
okay to run deficits, it was okay to bust the budget, that these were 
okay things to do; that it was okay to tell the people that they were 
only to come here for three terms, 6 years, and then return to their 
districts, and that was okay but they had a change of mind.
  But what happened that night was different because I never recall a 
single instance in which a member of the Republican majority said that 
I was offered a $100,000 bribe in order to break my promise to the 
people, to change my position on a public policy issue. And that is 
what the debate should be here about tonight, and until we get to the 
bottom of that matter, it is a shame and a blemish on this House.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  This is a great day for America. Today President Bush signed a 
prescription drug bill that will deliver on a promise that this 
Congress has talked about for 4 years and has passed three different 
bills to try to achieve it.
  Last year after we passed our second bill, the Senate, controlled by 
the Democrats, would not even allow a vote, would not even allow a 
vote. That is why when we had the opportunity to pass a bill that would 
provide, deliver, prescription drugs as a part of Medicare on the basis 
of voluntary participation to all seniors all across America, we were 
determined to take it. Furthermore, it is the first bill that counted 
all seniors in America as Medicare and seniors first and poor second. 
That is why we are taking all seniors off Medicaid, bringing them on 
Medicare's drug benefit so they will get the same benefit all across 
the country because they are seniors first and poor only second. The 
Senate bill did not do that. Our bill did that.
  And we passed this bill and pushed it through and held the vote open 
because we wanted to make sure that that half of women retired, living 
on very low incomes, would get what this bill promises them, $1 or $2 
copayments on generics and $3 or $5 on prescriptions, that is all.
  But we had to pass this bill for another reason. It does more to 
improve payments for rural health care providers and to link rural 
health care to sophisticated medical centers than any legislative 
initiative from this body ever has done, and without it the physicians 
out now in the rural towns, who are my husband's age and who are about 
to retire, will not be replaceable. We will not be able to attract the 
next generation of physicians to rural health care without the really 
rather arbitrary policy changes in this bill that reflect our 
experience in rural health and its inability to attract providers. So 
we saved rural seniors from not having access to doctors, home health 
agencies, and hospitals. And, furthermore, we link through these 
regional health plans rural medicine more tightly into sophisticated 
medical centers. And, lastly, we passed disease management in this bill 
for the plans on a mandatory basis and for Medicare as an integral part 
of it in the years to come, and, thereby, for the first time, built 
preventative health care into the Medicare structure. It is currently, 
now, solely an illness treatment program.
  With the new reforms the President signed today, and with great 
leadership from Secretary Tommy Thompson, who deserves tremendous 
credit, both for understanding the need for rural health to be linked 
into the modern delivery capability of technology, and who understood 
also the power that disease management is going to give us to help 
seniors with chronic illness prevent their chronic illnesses from 
progressing, and how urgent it is that when a plan like Medicare has 
one-third of its seniors with five chronic illnesses using 80 percent 
of program dollars that we do something about it, that we act. For 4 
years we have talked and not acted. If acting required holding that 
vote open, and then we saw at the end, two Republicans changed to 
``yes'' and two changed to ``no.'' What happened was that my friends on 
the other side of the aisle who understood the importance of this bill 
both to the quality of care seniors could achieve and to the 
revitalization of rural medicine then were free to lay their votes on 
table, and it was those additional votes that made the difference, and 
I thank them because bipartisanship is hard in this environment, and I 
understand it. But we did it for America's seniors. We did it together. 
The President signed it today, and it is an enormous victory for senior 
health care and the greatest step forward in women's health that this 
body has ever passed. And I am proud to stand here and say this 
Congress passed the modernization of Medicare and the inclusion of 
prescription drugs for our seniors with the President's help, and I 
thank him.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page 32107]]

  It is clear that the conduct of the Medicare prescription drug bill 
is indefensible, and that is why not one member of the elected 
leadership of the majority could show his face on this floor today to 
defend that behavior. It is clear.
  If we had so much time that night that we could wait, why could we 
not have time to debate? We had asked the Committee on Rules for more 
time for debate. Were the Republicans afraid that the American people 
would find out with further debate that they have a prohibition in the 
bill from this government negotiating for lower prices for prescription 
drugs for our seniors? Were they afraid that they would find out if 
they make $13,470 a year that they pay $4,000 of their first $5,000 for 
prescription drug benefits, $4,000 of their first $5,000?
  I brought this privileged resolution to the floor not because the 
Republicans had once again abused their power and once again had abused 
their customs and traditions of this House. I brought this privileged 
resolution to the House because there were newspaper publications of 
rumors of bribery, of $100,000 on the floor of this House to a Member 
of Congress and a threat to that Member of Congress that his son would 
never come to Congress unless he voted with the Republicans.
  The public deserves answers to that question. We will not let this 
rest. The Republican leadership can run, but they cannot hide from that 
rumor of bribery taking place on this floor of the House. The Member 
himself has asserted that, but we could not come to the floor until we 
had a written documentation of that assertion. That assertion is now 
documented.
  Mr. Speaker, much has been said about the President's signing this 
historic legislation today. This is not historic legislation. This is 
an historic missed opportunity to do what is right for America's 
seniors. It is historic in this respect: 40 years ago when the 
Democratic Congress and the Democratic President made Medicare the law 
of the land, only 13 Republicans voted for the Medicare bill. They had 
been waging war. The Republicans had been waging war on Medicare for 40 
years. They had their opportunity to have a full airing of the debate 
that night so the public could hear what they were up to with their 
Trojan horse of a piece of legislation. They did not have time to 
debate. They could not honor our request for more time to discuss this 
very historic and important legislation. They did have time for bribery 
on the floor of the House of Representatives.
  So, Mr. Speaker, this is an issue about how we conduct the people's 
business, how we set an example for the rest of the world. It is an 
example of how people are not accountable for their behavior on this 
floor by having business conducted here in a way that brings shame and 
dishonor to this House and not even coming to this floor to listen to 
the debate or to defend that conduct. This is a very historic day 
indeed because this is a day when the American people are finding out 
that the Republicans will go to any length to be the handmaidens of the 
pharmaceutical industry. They will go to any length to be beholden to 
the HMOs and the insurance industry, that the Republicans will go to 
any length to justify the wrong actions that they are taking. So 
convinced of the correctness of their position that they think that any 
action is justified. Let that not be the rule that applies to any of us 
on either side of the aisle.
  So, Mr. Speaker, with that I urge my colleagues to support our 
privileged resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.


         Motion to Table Offered by Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut

  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The Clerk will report the 
motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut moves that the resolution be 
     laid on the table.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The motion is not debatable.
  The question is on the motion to table offered by the gentlewoman by 
Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 207, 
nays 182, not voting 45, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 677]

                               YEAS--207

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

                               NAYS--182

     Abercrombie
     Alexander
     Allen
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Case
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)

[[Page 32108]]


     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Weiner
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--45

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baker
     Berman
     Boucher
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Capuano
     Carson (OK)
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Duncan
     Everett
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Gallegly
     Gephardt
     Gerlach
     Istook
     Janklow
     Kennedy (RI)
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Lynch
     Manzullo
     Menendez
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Nadler
     Oxley
     Pascrell
     Quinn
     Rohrabacher
     Schiff
     Stark
     Thornberry
     Vitter
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Young (AK)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1704

  Messrs. FRANK of Massachusetts, DAVIS of Illinois, and HALL changed 
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. OSBORNE, RYUN of Kansas, GREENWOOD, AKIN, BEAUPREZ, and 
TANCREDO, and Ms. HART changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to table was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 677, due to urgent 
constituent support commitments in my congressional district, I missed 
the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

                          ____________________