Charlie Stenholm

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to help clarify some other rhetoric that we will be hearing from this floor regarding spending. I have served in the House of Representatives since 1979. When we look at discretionary spending by the Congress, it has declined by 36 percent from 1978 until the year 2000 as a percent of our gross domestic product. Entitlement spending has gone up 3 percent during that same period. Revenues have gone up 14 percent since that period. Interest rates have gone up 43 percent. That is why we are emphasizing paying down the debt. Monies spent on interest are the least productive number of dollars that we can spend in this Congress. Money spent on defense, on veterans, on military retirees, on health care, on education, on agriculture are the most productive dollars that we can spend. So long as they are spent prudently and with policies that we can agree to in a bipartisan way, they are the most efficient and the best way to deal with our Nation's problems.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of provisions contained in the Conference Report on H.R. 4577 that will enact legislation to reform the Commodity Exchange Act. It is a great accomplishment that an agreement has been reached on this matter. It would not have occurred without the dedication and determination of the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Ewing. Mr. Speaker, the agreement tackles and accomplishes the three main tasks the Agriculture Committee set for itself at the beginning of our CEA reform process: Modernizing our Commodity Exchange Act regulatory system; Providing legal certainty for our over-the-counter derivatives market; and Repealing the outdated prohibition on the trading of single stock futures in the U.S. Mr. Speaker, the agreement is broadly supported by the Administration, by the President's Working Group on Financial Markets, and by the financial services industry. Mr. Speaker, the portions of this bill that reform our regulation of trading on futures exchanges will hopefully bring about opportunities for great improvement in the efficiency of our markets. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission deserves the credit for the design of these provisions. As included in this bill, the reform provisions serve as our acknowledgment that as technology and research transform our trading systems, Congress must ensure that regulatory statutes are well-suited to helpful innovations. Mr. Speaker, the CFTC's role in preventing and detecting fraudulent activity will continue under its new system of regulation. The legislation before us deliberately retains the authority of the Commission to punish those who commit fraud in violation of section 4b of the Commodity Exchange Act. While section 4b makes it a crime for a futures commission merchant or other fiduciary to defraud a customer in connection with a futures trade, it also is intended to make criminal the type of fraud that may occur when a bucket shop or boiler room defrauds a customer and no agent-principal relationship is present. Mr. Speaker, again I want to clarify that with this bill, section 4b is retained in its entirety. It will continue to be a crime for anyone to commit fraud in connection with a futures contract--whether or not an agency relationship is established. Section 4b provides the Commission with broad authority to police fraudulent conduct within its jurisdiction, whether occurring in boiler rooms and bucket shops, or in the e-commerce markets that will develop under this new statutory framework. Mr. Speaker, again I support the inclusion of CEA reform in this bill, and I congratulate Chairman Ewing for his achievement.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, a couple of years ago my wife, Cindy, and I sent out Christmas cards on which we signed it ``Charlie and Cindy.'' We got a couple back saying, ``Thank you for the Christmas card, but who are Charlie and Cindy?'' In San Antonio, no one ever asked the question, who is Henry B.? I have known and worked with many colleagues over the years, but none that had the absolute reverence shown to them by his constituency, and knowing him and favorably calling him Henry B. Charlie, you had a great dad. I enjoyed 20 years of his life, getting to know him here on the House floor. We did not often vote together. In fact, more often than not we voted differently. But I found that at no time did I ever doubt the sincerity of the vote cast, the speech made, the point made, the dedication and the sincerity of his attempt to represent his people, his district and his views; and he articulated this in a way that this one more conservative Member never hesitated to say to those that differed, you might differ, but you can never doubt the sincerity. This place, this Congress and this country, is a better country today because of the likes of Henry B. Gonzalez that comes to this body, represents the views and wishes of his district, and does it in a way that, not only his constituents, but the rest of us will never forget who Henry B. was and is today.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the 50th anniversary of one of Abilene's oldest performing arts organizations, the Abilene Philharmonic Orchestra on December 2 of this year. This great symphony orchestra enriches the cultural life of a city in a unique way; it creates a place where fine musicians want to live and teach and perform. In the 1950-opening season, concerts were held in the old Abilene High School with audiences of less than 100 people. Currently the Abilene Philharmonic Orchestra performs in the Abilene Civic Center with crowds averaging 2,000. I would not only like to acknowledge this organization for their 50th anniversary, but also the impact they have had on the Abilene community.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) for yielding, and I want to pick up on the gentleman's comments and the comments of the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) a moment ago in which he talked about his concern about us leaving town without dealing with the Medicare/Medicaid givebacks. That bothers me. It bothers a lot of my constituents who are worried that this finger- pointing game that we are in and this impasse that we are in is going to end, that we are going to end up this year without dealing with their problem, and we are not. I wished it were possible for to us do it tomorrow morning, but my purpose in being here for the third time today is to begin hopefully to stop the finger-pointing and begin to acknowledge the fact that we are not going to accomplish anything more of substance this year until the election, not this year, until the election. We say we are going to be working. I am chuckling now and, I guess, permit me one little finger-pointing of my own, Mr. Speaker, tonight. There has been a lot of rhetoric that we are here to work, but the only person I see from the other side of the aisle that is here right now is the Speaker, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts). And I apologize for keeping the gentleman, and I apologize for keeping these staff here tonight if we are convincing that we are doing work to resolve this problem, because we are not. The Senate has gone home. I am afraid that we are going to come here in the morning and we are going to start the finger-pointing all over again, and that is not going to resolve anything. The facts are this Congress has thus far failed in doing our work, and we have failed in dealing with our hospitals and our nursing homes. We have failed to resolve that. And as we heard the previous discourse, but when we had our friends from the other side here, and they were so kind to yield to us, we could find that there was a lot of room and agreement, but the leadership of the House and the White House, et cetera, have not been able to resolve it. That is what I am worried about. I would hope that anyone that is concerned about us going home December the 31 without resolving the health care or the Medicare/ Medicaid giveback, the BBA fix, that you would breathe easier, because we will not finish this year's work without dealing with that problem for sure. Perhaps, we can deal with some of the others. I would hope we can deal with the pharmaceutical question. I would hope we can deal with the patients' bill of rights. I would hope that we can do a lot of other things, but if we have to prioritize, this is one that is of a high priority. It is important, I think, for us to stop the finger-pointing. I think that is clear, and the people are going to separate that one come November the 7th. No matter how you color it, there has been a failure of leadership in the Congress of doing our work, and as I said a moment ago, I get a little bit testy when I hear it blamed on the minority. As I said before, I have been here in the majority for 16 years, and I caught a lot of blame, because when we Democrats had control of the House, we were not perfect. But I get a little bit ticked now when I continue to get the blame for not getting our work done. For my friends on the other side of the aisle to continue to come in and to blame the President, because he made us increase spending to $645 billion, I remember so many times in which I have said when I was here with the Reagan administration and the Bush administration and, before that, the Carter Administration, Presidents do not spend money. There is no possible way for a President to spend money that the Congress does not first appropriate. Now, it often depends on who is in charge and who is pointing the fingers who you were going to blame, but it matters not whether it was a Republican President or a Democratic President, you are still not going to spend money that the Congress does not first appropriate. If you have a difference between the administration and the Congress, because they are in different parties, if you are going to beat the President, which it seems there has been a dedication, at least on some in the leadership on the other side of the aisle that they have got to beat the President, the only way you beat the President is by getting a two thirds vote. That is what the Constitution provides. I have said over and over if you want to beat the President, you have to got to reach out to the other side. My frustration on the one area that I am the most extremely concerned about is in the area of the balanced budget givebacks, if we should not accomplish our work, I will have 10 hospitals to 12 hospitals in my district close within the next 6 months. If we are not able to resolve that question, that is what will happen. But what my friends in this body, particularly on the majority side, do not seem to understand, the same leader that was responsible for the most part for writing the Balanced Budget Agreement in 1997 that has caused the problem for Medicare and Medicaid is the same leader that has given us his version of how we fix it and said take it or leave it and we will not negotiate that any further. Now, we have a bill, as my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), has stated, we have a bill that has been reintroduced in which we will deal with some specifics. I think it is extremely important that we give a full hospital prospective payment system update for 2 years, not just for 1 year. Because we have so many of our hospitals today that are dealing with so much uncertainty. They are already in the red. They are facing difficulty of borrowing money, and all it seems that the majority wants to say is we are going to give you one more year and then we are going to start cutting you again. How are you going to deal with that? Our bill improves the formula for rural disproportionate share hospitals, a higher level of reimbursement for rural hospitals that serve low-income individuals of which, unfortunately, rural America is not sharing in the economic boom that the rest of America is sharing in, and, therefore, we on this side believe that that should be acknowledged. The majority has said, thanks but no thanks; this is all we can do. We provide for a 10 percent bonus for rural health agencies to compensate for the high cost of travel. The majority has said thanks but no thanks. We provide for a 2-year delay in the 15 percent cuts in payments for home health agencies. Again, the majority has said thanks but no thanks. Interestingly, this might sound like that we are wanting to spend more money, but our bill actually spends less over 5-year and 10-year periods than the majority proposal does. You would never believe that when you listen to the majority in here, and particularly the gentleman from California, who so eloquently talks about his version of it. I do not pretend for a moment that I am smarter than they are, but I do respectfully ask from time to time to at least consider the views of some on this side of the aisle and allow us to have some input. The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) have spent hours looking at the pharmaceutical benefit question. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) has looked at the education question over and over and over again. He has some different ideas. What is wrong with allowing the minority to have some input? If you do, you might be surprised. You might be surprised and find out that if the President disagrees, then there might be 290 that would disagree with the President, but I do not think that that would happen. Again, this ``how much is enough?'' I do not remember how many times we have to answer the question. We still bring out the silly chart. When you are in the majority, you run this place, or at least you try to. You set the cap at $645 billion, which is $12 billion more than I think it ought to be, and $8 billion more than the President thought it ought to be. And no matter how many times you say how much is enough, you are not going to change that fact. Let me just say enough is enough. We have to find a way to wind this down. There is nothing else going to happen of a positive nature, other than perhaps we will pass the National Park bill tomorrow morning. From what I understand, we are going to spend some more money, you might have to increase the budget caps again, not with my vote. We might do that tomorrow on the budget. I do not know. I hope I am wrong what I have been hearing about that. We ought not to have been here today. We ought not to have been here yesterday. Here again, the finger-pointing. I hope tomorrow that we can get through this without any more finger-pointing. Let us let all the finger pointing stop tonight. I was reminded a long time ago, when you are pointing a finger, there are three pointing back at you. There are three pointing back at me tonight. But I, again, will make this request, in case there is going to be a temptation of the other side to point the finger again in the morning regarding where the President is tonight and where the Minority Leader is tonight, where they are tomorrow. Were there any meetings to work out the differences yesterday? Were there any meetings last Friday, last Saturday, last Sunday, last Monday, last Tuesday up to 1 o'clock and even yesterday? Were there any meetings requested by the other side of the aisle to my side of the aisle in which we said, thanks, but no thanks, we do not wish to negotiate? If there are, I would like for somebody to come in and correct me, and I will eat the humble pie. But I think the facts are there had not been. It is all a rhetorical game. It is all political rhetoric that is designed to benefit somebody by November 7. Well, it does not solve many problems. What we should have been doing last Friday since we were here working and every time we say this, work, work, work, well, there is four of us here working tonight. But we are immaterial at this point in time, because the Senate has gone home. The House, all 435 of us, could be here working, and nothing would come of it. So hopefully tonight will be the last time until November 8 that we start the finger pointing. But I hope when we come back November 8 or 9 or whenever we come back in the lame duck session, that we will come back with a different attitude, whoever wins the majority. I hope there will be enough of us to say enough is enough, not on the spending level, but enough is enough with the finger pointing. I certainly hope, and I assure those out there in each of our 50 States that are worried about whether we are going to get our Nation's business done by December 31, ``you ain't seen nothing yet'' as far as disruptions if we find we are unable to work out a satisfactory compromise that will deal with our nursing homes and our hospitals and our reimbursement rate. That one is a must. I say this very respectfully and with a lot of assurance, there will be bipartisan agreement to that. This will not be a partisan issue after November 7. There are enough folks, Mr. Speaker, on the other side of the aisle that absolutely agree. Our problem tonight is a leadership problem. It has been a strategy, and we will see next week whose strategy has worked and whose has not. But I hope tomorrow, and to those that say it has got to be bipartisan, let the record clearly show, if it takes a Democrat to say it is time for us to go home and come back in a lame duck session, Mr. Speaker, I am saying it right now. Nothing additional of a positive nature can be accomplished past tomorrow.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I thank the gentleman for making that point. That is a good question. What did happen? When we have a unanimous vote in the Committee on Commerce, what happened in the Committee on Ways and Means? What is it that causes the leadership now to say what we did in the Committee on Commerce is no good, but what was done in the Committee on Ways and Means, not in a bipartisan way, but in a pure partisan way, is the only way to go, and we have to take it or leave it. I do not understand that. That is not what this body, this House of Representatives, this body that has for so long prided itself on doing the people's business, on having committees that actually function, and having committees that will listen to the minority, and if I minority has a good idea, accept it. I happen to serve on the Committee on Agriculture. I am the minority on the Committee on Agriculture. Under the leadership of the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Combest), we do not have that problem. We have always had a give-and-take. We do not have any problems. When you see Committee on Agriculture bills come to the floor, very seldom do you have differences from the Committee. Very seldom do we get unanimous agreement in this House, but the process worked. The process in the Committee on Ways and Means is not working. Because the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner) who was here a moment ago is on the Committee on Ways and Means, but he is on the minority. When you stop allowing the minority to have their views heard and voted upon and then it voted down, then you bring it to the floor, and if you get disagreement here, then you had better hope that you have got the President with you because, if not, nothing is going to happen. But something broke down, and that is what is causing the fussing today. But I suspect that, if we had a unanimous agreement in the Committee on Commerce, that when we come back after November 7, that cooler heads will prevail, and that if by chance, their bill, our bill, it would not surprise me if we are going to have bipartisan support for it when it comes back. Those that say no, we are only going to do it our way or the highway, perhaps they will be on the highway.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, how much is enough? $645 is the number. We can fuss about how we spend it, but $645 billion is the number. So let me remind everyone now when we are talking about numbers, when we started this year, the Republican budget said 627 was enough. The President said 637 was enough. The Republicans said that was too much. The Blue Dogs came in at 633 and said that is a reasonable compromise. Well, where would we be tonight had the Republicans accepted our version and we would have been standing here tonight, and I suspect the gentleman from Wisconsin would have been agreeing with us on the 633, just like we are saying on the 645.

Mr. STENHOLM. If the gentleman will yield, precisely. A moment ago the gentleman from Arizona made a statement that he and I agree on. I think upon a proper reflection of the question of how many of those citizens, or noncitizens, illegals, that might need to be reunited with their family, we probably could agree, and it will be considerably less than 4 million. But both of us represent border States, both of us understand that there are certain things that need to be done in that, but not 4 million; and it was never a part of the Labor-HHS discussions. My point here is that reasonable people can work this out. This is what I am suggesting tonight. Again I want to say to my friend from Arizona, the President was available, at the White House, at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue on Friday, on Saturday, on Sunday, on Monday, on Tuesday until 1 o'clock, again on Wednesday. At no time did the leadership of my House of Representatives ever make a request to meet with the President.

Mr. STENHOLM. Here again, we keep talking about, the sign is up again, ``How much is enough?'' The majority party set a new set of caps at $645 billion when you attached it to the Foreign Operations bill. I did not vote for it because that is too much. But you did. You keep pointing the finger of blame. I am not here tonight to point the finger of blame. What I am trying to say is the $645 billion is set; and if in the final negotiations on all the appropriations, whatever the President makes us do, if we spend more than $645 billion, you know, all of us know, we will have to sequester and we will have to cut across the board in order to bring it back to $645 billion, unless the new Congress is like the past three Congresses, we do not live up to the budget rules. We all understand that.

Mr. STENHOLM. That is what I say. When I come to the floor, and I appreciate the courtesies given to me, if I ever say anything that is untrue, I would like for somebody to come to the floor and correct me. Therefore, that is what I believe according to what I understand and if anybody can correct me, if you can correct me or if any one of the leadership can come in and say, What he is saying, the gentleman from Texas is all wet, come in and tell me. Otherwise, let us not keep pointing the finger of blame.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I would like to participate with my three colleagues tonight. We were talking a moment ago about being here and working, and I heard comments made about we are glad to be here and working. I would agree with you if we were here working. But can anyone of the three of you tell me any meeting that has occurred between the negotiators, the leadership since 1:20 Sunday night as far as work to do the things we need to do? When you put the poster up a moment ago about four million illegal aliens, this Member would join you in opposing that. That is not what we are talking about, and you know it. But it can be negotiated back and this is what we could do. We could work out an agreement on that that I think all four of us would agree to. It could be done. But my question is this: Can you name one meeting that has occurred since 1:20 Sunday night, or Monday morning actually, that has occurred that has actually been a working meeting that would provide for some hope of resolving some of these difficulties?

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, the President was available all day Friday, all day Saturday, all day Sunday, all day Monday, until 1 o'clock on Tuesday, and was available for a period of time on Wednesday. At no time was there ever any request by the leadership of the House to negotiate on the questions of which you are talking about according to my information.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. If we can kind of get back to the basic thesis of the whole 1-hour tonight that the gentleman from Georgia has started. On the question of how much is enough that my colleagues keep asking, but they are not listening to what is being said by someone who is on the Committee on Appropriations. The $645 billion has been set as a cap. Any additional fussing about additional money is going to have to be resolved under the House rules, which I assume you all will support; I certainly will. Now, when we start talking about ergonomics, let the record show, that was a rider added by your side of the aisle, which I supported. And let the record show that on school construction, I do agree that Davis-Bacon should not be applicable to local bond issues. But that was a rider that your side put on, not our side, but I happen to agree. Immigration, we have already talked about that one. I think we can find a middle ground that will treat people of our country who are doing tremendous service to our country fairly by finding an agreement, and I think the gentleman from Arizona and I would agree on that. But the $4 million is an erroneous number and should not be coming out on the House floor. The one area that I really disagree with the majority party on is in the area of hospitals, home health, nursing homes and other health care providers, the BBA fix. I happen to totally disagree with what your side has put together regarding how we are going to deal with a very serious problem facing our rural hospitals, which is my district, nursing homes; and I suspect we all agree to that. But you put together a package, your side put together a package, which you allowed no one on my side of the aisle to have any input into, and no one in the administration to have any input into, and you said, take it or leave it. Some of us said we think we can do better. If there is one reservation that I have about us going home before completing this, it is in this area, because it is giving a tremendous amount of uncertainty; but we are not going to finish that, because the Senate has gone home. But that is one area in which, again, I think, I think that reasonable people on both sides, once we get away from this rhetoric, the blame game, and I am not here defending the President, or defending my leadership, or defending anybody else, except when I think they are right, and in this case, I think they are right.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy, and I will be very brief.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I totally agree. When we talk about process, for 16 years of my 22, I was in the majority party, and many on the Republican side blamed me as a Democrat for being part of the big spending problem. And I had to accept it, because we were in the majority. My frustration with the Republican side, with the Republican leadership, not with my colleagues here tonight, but my frustration is, the Republicans continue to point the finger of blame at the minority side, and everyone that understands the process, understands that minorities cannot achieve that which the majority does not go along with. Mr. Speaker, a little constitutional reminder: when the President is of the other party, the President has sufficient power, and the only way we can beat a President is with a two-thirds vote override. When we have a very small majority, it is important that we work to achieve some help on the other side. My frustration is that at no time during the last 2 years has the Republican side ever attempted to work to override the President.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, it was the Committee on Commerce.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I hope we can put an end to the fingerpointing. It is time for us to close down this part of the session of the House of Representatives. Mr. Speaker, I want all of those that have been doing the fingerpointing, I want to ask, were there any meetings to work out the differences yesterday? Were there any meetings today? Have there been any meetings between the leadership of the House and the White House since 1:20 last Sunday night? Can anyone from the other side of the aisle tell me of a single invitation to meet and truly negotiate over the remaining items that the administration or Democrats from Congress refused to attend? If they can, take another 1 minute and say so. If not, let us quit the fingerpointing and realize we have to come back after the election and finish the work of this Congress. This is not doing any good, what we have heard tonight, not one bit of good. We are not doing anything. It is ridiculous. We could have voted on the Everglades yesterday. We could vote on it tonight. We do not have to come back tomorrow, but we will be here tomorrow.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, another area that we have been very derelict on in the 106th Congress and that has to do with energy policy. We paid a pretty good price, it was not nearly as bad as it could have been, with Desert Storm. But we had to send our youngest and finest into harm's way, and it was one of the toughest votes that I have had to cast in support of President Bush's move to send our troops over to the Middle East. Everyone knew we did not go over there to put the emir back on his throne in Kuwait. We went over there to defend the Free World's access to oil. There for a while after that, I thought that Congress and the administration would begin to recognize that the lack of an energy policy in the United States is a national security policy. But we have gone through one more Congress now and one more administration without dealing with an energy policy. Oh, the finger-pointing has been going on, but you do not solve problems with finger-pointing. One of the things that I think the gentleman from Mississippi and I, and I believe the gentleman in the chair fits right into this mix, whether it is Idaho, Mississippi or Texas, my folks do not like to hear criticism of the other guy. They do not like to hear Democrats criticizing Republicans, Republicans criticizing Presidents unless you offer a constructive alternative, unless you say, I'm against this but here's what I'm for. And here I believe that the reason that we are here tonight and we still have not completed our work, it has been a failure of leadership, of recognizing that we had, or we should have, passed a budget that could have restrained spending. We did not agree with the President's original call. We, the Blue Dogs, did not agree with the President's original spending call of $637 billion. And we did not agree with the Republicans' call for $625 billion, because we did recognize there needed to be some additional spending, in the defense area in particular but in rural America, in education; and, therefore, we suggested a compromise between what the President proposed and what the majority in the Congress proposed. We got 138 Democrats to support our budget, and we got 37 Republicans to support it. Hindsight being 20/20, I just wonder where we would be tonight had we passed the Blue Dog budget and had 290 votes if that was a problem, but I do not see where that would have been a problem with the President. If he had 138 Democrats and all of the Republicans saying let's hold spending down, I doubt seriously you would have had a President saying, let's spend more. We will never know the answer to that. That is the kind of rhetoric that everybody has fun with. I want to mention one other area and this one really bothers me today. That is in the area of health care. The balanced budget agreement of 1997 cut the Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates way too much. We have literally destroyed our small hospitals, and quite a few of our large hospitals are having trouble. Therefore, I do not choose to say just rural, that happens to be my district, and a lot of times communities like Abilene and San Angelo of 100,000 population do not consider themselves rural but for purposes of health care come a lot closer. But we have reached an impasse. The Senate has gone home without even taking up the so-called tax cuts and/or balanced budget giveback for 2001. If we should end up doing nothing, we will do irreparable harm to the health care delivery system. Nursing homes, we have, I am told, over 200 bankrupted today. I know I have several in my district that, unless we do our work and recognize that we do have to put some more money back into Medicare-Medicaid, we have got real troubles. But yet the chairman of the committee has said unequivocally we will not renegotiate that which the committee did in a purely partisan way, with no input from the administration, no input from our side of the aisle. The same gentleman that wrote the balanced budget agreement health care provisions in 1997 is the same gentleman that tonight is saying under no circumstances will we renegotiate the health care provisions, because he believes he is right. Well, he may be right. But some of the rest of us may also be right, and this is where our Constitution provides that you seek compromise. Compromise is not a four-letter word. There are sincere Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle that would like to sit down and to reach a compromise on some of these issues and not have a confrontation. But you cannot do that from the minority side of the aisle. I spent the first 16 years of my life here in the Congress in the majority and found myself defending myself from some of the same things that I hear my colleagues today accusing me of today, big-spending, liberal Democrats. How can this be, Mr. Speaker? When you are in the minority, you do not control what comes out of the Congress. When you control both the House and the Senate, it is your game plan. If the President is from the other party, you have got to override him. To override him, you have got to reach out to folks on the other side of the aisle and the current leadership of the House; and I want to say this very respectfully, the current leadership has chosen confrontation over compromise. That had something to do with political strategy. And we are sure going to find out come next Tuesday what worked and what did not. But in the meantime, look at what we are doing. We will have a new President come November 7, at least elect a President-elect, and we will have a new Congress. I do not know whether it is going to be a Democratically controlled Congress, which I kind of hope for, or Republican, but whoever is in control is really immaterial. It is really immaterial. Somehow, some way we have got to get back on track. We have got to listen to the gentleman from Mississippi when he points out validly that our debt is still going up. My last comment at this stage is yesterday I was back home in my district, and I had a group of seniors from Paradise High School that came out. We got into a little bit of this budget and impasse and you do not want to get too detailed because most folks' eyes glaze over when we start talking about these numbers, but I made the point of $4.6 trillion projected surplus and how can you spend projected surpluses when you cannot predict tomorrow and that the Blue Dogs have said we ought to use most of this money to pay down the debt because that is the only way you change the charts of the gentleman from Mississippi where they are meaningful is by paying down the debt. One young lady raised her hand and said, ``Mr. Congressman, how can we have a surplus when we owe $5.7 trillion?'' Try answering that question to a senior and getting away with it.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Mississippi for yielding to me, and I thank him for continuing to come to the floor and to make the very valid points about this so-called surplus. I also appreciate him bringing up the word ``honesty.'' Because each and every one of us that is elected to this body are basically honest people, 435 Members; but many times in the heat of political battle we tend to stretch the truth when it is perceived to be politically advantageous. And when we start talking about the debt and the fact we are here tonight, Mr. Speaker, three of us in this Chamber right now working, at least three of us are working, and I would renew the invitation to any of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who might be back in their offices working to come to the floor and to participate in this discussion, challenge the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) on that which he has said and challenge me on some of the things that I am going to say. Because I do not intend to misrepresent the truth tonight. But things are getting a little ridiculous around the House of Representatives. The Senate went home today. ``With the budget unresolved, the Senate agreed to adjourn until after the election.'' And they are gone. But yet, we have already heard speakers on this floor today saying we are going to work throughout the weekend. I would like to work throughout the weekend to resolve this budget impasse before the election, because I am not real sure we are going to do a very credible job after November 7, any better than we are doing before. There are a lot of people out in the country now beginning to talk about the job that the 106th Congress is doing. The San Jose Mercury News, on October 24: ``Congress has been doing very little but doing it very expensively. What the Republicans have not needed from Clinton is any encouragement to spend money. Facing a close election, they have not only been giving Clinton what he wants but pumping money into their own districts with a fire hose.'' Eight of the 10 appropriations bills that Congress has passed and sent to the President would spend more than the President had requested. According to the estimates of the Congressional Budget Office, the 10 appropriations bills that this Congress has sent to the President would spend $505.5 billion in outlays, which is 10.7 more than the $494.8 billion the President requested including the supplementals calculated by the Congressional Budget Office. The increase in discretionary spending caps for fiscal year 2001 adopted by the House on a party line vote as part the Foreign Operations appropriations conference report, rollcall No. 545, would allow Congress to increase discretionary spending above the amount requested by the President by $13 billion in the budget already and $8 billion in outlays. Now, what has this got to do with what the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) has just been saying? Everything. Discretionary spending is that which the Congress appropriates. The only way we can spend that money, the only way the President can spend that money, and we keep hearing about the President spending money, and I have now been privileged to serve in this body with four Presidents and they are all alike regarding the Constitution, but no President may spend money that the Congress does not first appropriate, whether it is for foreign aid, whether it is for highways, whether it is for agriculture, whatever it may be. According to the bipartisan Concord Coalition, if discretionary spending continues to increase at the same rate it has over the last 3 years under the Republican Congress for the next 10 years, nearly two- thirds of the projected $2.2 billion surplus that is non-Social Security will be wiped out. Now, that is a fact. That is why the chart of the gentleman and what he says about the surplus is critical to the actions that we are taking today. Let me quote another newspaper. Everybody gets all upset when we talk about newspapers from the Northeast, but let us talk about the Des Moines Register, October 27: ``If nothing else, this session of Congress should lay to rest the cliche about Democrats being the party of big spenders and the Republicans being the party of less government. The Republicans that control this Congress are setting the record for big spending. The Republican majority stands accused of wallowing in classic pork barrel politics.'' Now, here is the main point that I want to plug into the discussion tonight. We should have completed our work we said by October 5 or October 6. We are now 32 days into the new fiscal year, and we still have not gotten an agreement. Now, there is a lot of finger-pointing going on. And, oh, have we heard it again today, who is to blame for the stalemate, and a lot of rhetoric about who wants to work. And I think it is going to get even more ridiculous tomorrow. Because here we are basically having completed our work for today at 4 o'clock in the afternoon as far as legislation is concerned and we will not go back into the session for any work, ``legislation,'' until 6 o'clock tomorrow evening. But most of us and my colleague and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) and I, we understand that the work we are talking about should be going on in a conference between the appropriators and the House, majority and minority, and appropriators in the Senate, majority and minority. But we have already heard the Senate has gone home. There are no meetings going on. And again, if someone can clarify this, if there are meetings, then I want to stand corrected. Because I do not wish the Congressional Record tomorrow to have me saying something that is untrue. If there are meetings going on at this moment or were there any meetings to work out the differences yesterday, I would love for the Congressional Record to show documentation that there was one meeting to resolve the budget differences that we are talking about that have kept the House in and that are going to keep us here through the election. This is the rhetoric going on. That is fine. We can talk about work all we want to. But if there is no work going on, who are we kidding? Why did the congressional leadership not accept the President's offer to meet yesterday to discuss an agreement on responsible tax relief and a Medicare package that provides assistance to health care providers as well as beneficiaries instead of providing over 40 percent of the funding for HMOs? Why was there not that invitation? You would think, based on the rhetoric that we have heard on the floor, that the President has been out of town campaigning. But I believe if you check the White House attendance record you will find that the President was available all day last Friday, all day last Saturday, all day Sunday, of which the first meeting that occurred, the first work that occurred in the Congress over the weekend occurred beginning at 10 o'clock Sunday night and concluded at 1:20 with an agreement that then blew up. The President was available all day Monday. He was available until 1 o'clock yesterday. He was in town today. His schedule is flexible for the remainder of the week. Why has the leadership of the Congress not engaged the President on any one of those days? That is, I think, a serious legitimate question. The administration and the Democratic negotiators tell me that they continue to be available and will be available to meet with the Republican leadership to negotiate on these items. Can anyone from the other side tell me of a single invitation to meet and negotiate over the remaining items that the administration or Democrats from Congress have refused to attend? Now, we can stay here and pretend that we are working by having one vote each day or two. We will approve the Journal and then we will have a 24-hour extension. But who are we kidding? Who are we kidding if there are no negotiations going on between our leaders? Now, I think it is important to remember that the leadership of this House said early this year we were going to complete our work on time, we were going to run the trains on time, but we would not negotiate with the President of the United States. That is fine. That is a prerogative of leadership to make a plan. But I think again a little practical constitutional reminder is in order. This President, the previous three Presidents, the next President, you cannot be a President in the Congress unless you have two-thirds of the vote. You can disagree. You can dislike him. You can call him names. That is one of the great privileges that we have in this country is to criticize the President and criticize the Congress. It is one of the marvels of our system. It is called freedom of speech. We can be as critical as we want to. But in the end, it is incumbent upon the Congress to get our work done. And the majority party in the Congress is responsible for getting our work done. It is not the minority. You cannot blame it on the minority leader as some are doing now. You cannot blame it on the minority in the Senate. Oh, you can do it. It is the easiest thing in the world to say it. But the truth is, under our constitutional form of government and our rule of majority, the only action that can be taken is that which is approved by the majority. Now, if you want to override a Presidential veto, there is a way to do it. You find 73 Democrats to vote with you, assuming all Republicans are in agreement. It is called two-thirds. To get two-thirds, though, you have to at least try to work with the other side of the aisle. At no time in these last few days as we are talking about working has there been any serious overtures over to this side of the aisle that I am aware of to begin working on compromises. We are basically down to three or four things that are keeping us from completing our work and going home for the election. Immigration. A lot of controversy on that one. But there is a good solid middle ground that I think the majority on both parties can support. School construction. Again I think there is a good solid middle ground that could be worked out if folks sat down and just worked on that issue or awfully, awfully close. The appropriators, the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), have done great work and they are deserving of no criticism. And I mean no criticism of the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) and the other appropriators. That is not the problem. We have a crisis of leadership of refusing to do that which is necessary to get the work of the House completed. And here I have seen charts, bringing up charts here saying, ``How much is enough?'' I hope we have burned those charts because they are inaccurate. They are inaccurate. We have stated how much money is going to be spent in 2001. The majority party very clearly voted to increase the cap by over $100 billion more than the budget that they had originally called for in the 1997 Budget Act. So that is all behind us. Anyone that is proposing to spend new money or more money, whether it is the President or anyone else, knows that if it is an appropriated dollar, that it is going to have to come out of somebody else's pocket. The gentleman from Mississippi has pointed out that when we start talking about spending, we are taking it out of somebody's pocket. It is coming right out of somebody's pocket, no matter how you choose to spin it. Well, I hope that sometime tonight, or tomorrow or by 6 o'clock tomorrow that the leadership of this House will realize that it makes no sense to continue to say that we are working if nothing is going on.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, he reminded me of two other points that need to be made regarding the debt. Nothing up on your chart shows the unfunded liability of our Social Security system; almost $8 trillion that that system is unfunded. Now, that will not affect anyone on Social Security today. Anybody 55 years of age and older does not have to worry about that, but my two grandsons have to worry about it because no one disagrees that unless we make some changes soon in the Social Security system that our children and grandchildren are going to have a real, real problem. That is the relevance of the charts that the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) was pointing out to us a moment ago. When you start borrowing from the trust funds, which we did, which we did for year after year after year, but now we have an opportunity to stop it. When you have an opportunity to stop it, we would like to really stop it, not just rhetorically but actually. The record is going to show that this Congress has spent a good bit, we do not know how much yet because we are not through, will have spent a good part of this projected surplus. Now, I want to also call attention to the alternative Medicare and Medicaid give-back bill that some of us would like to see considered. It is a much better bill than the one that we have been told by the current majority that we have to take or leave. It offers stronger protections for beneficiaries. It makes major improvements for beneficiaries, especially low-income seniors, children and working families. It will really help your hospitals, nursing homes, home health agencies and hospices get the help they need so that they can stay open and provide access for seniors. It gives them certainty. Instead of giving just 1 year of guarantee of certainty, we say give our hospitals, our nursing homes, 2 years so that they can begin to plan to undo the terrible damage that has been done over the last several years. It requires HMOs to offer a stable 3-year contract of service to your constituents as a condition of getting increased payments. What is wrong with that? Or at least why would we be opposed to giving 3 years guarantee if you are an HMO while at the same time saying we cannot give but 1 year certainty, why not give a little more certainty to all involved in health care? Now, this is an alternative. I mentioned that if you are going to be opposed, as I very strongly am, to the version that we have been given on a take it or leave it basis, we have offered something that negotiators could sit down and not give everybody everything of what they want perhaps but at least have a good discussion. Mr. Speaker, that is the problem. I want to repeat so that every one of our colleagues who are hard at work in their offices tonight, that we are getting a little bit ridiculous in saying we are going to stay here and work when the only people that are required to stay here and work are our staffs, when the negotiators that are responsible for pulling together this last bit of compromise necessary are not even meeting. Some of the most vocal critics on this floor have missed vote after vote after vote, which indicates they have been on the floor criticizing inaction and pointing the finger at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue but have not been here themselves and working. We can stop there. Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of folks on our side of the aisle that are willing to help stop it, but it has to start somewhere and it has to start with leadership. Let me remind everybody again, the Senate has gone home. They have said in the climate that we are operating in now we cannot get any more work done. If that is true, and that was the will of the Senate, the majority in the Senate have said let us go home. If we are not going to work, which we are not, then what are we going to do, Mr. Speaker? Let us not indicate we are going to work over the weekend and all we are going to do is cast two votes every day, a 24-hour CR and an approval of the journal. We will look awfully foolish. In fact, we have already looked rather foolish. In the meantime, we are spending this surplus at a record rate. One Member, a very, very distinguished Member on the other side of the Hill has stated that he has found $21 billion in this $645 billion that is questionable spending. Well, that is done. Boy, it really makes our challenges for the future greater. In the short term, we are sure looking ridiculous as a Congress. Quit pointing the finger at those on our side of the aisle. We are in the minority. You cannot blame the minority for not getting our work done. That is a responsibility that comes with the majority; and I hope after November 7 I can get the criticism honestly.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I would like to lower the tenor of the debate and accept a couple of offers, correct one statement, and accept one offer today to see if we might find a way to take this restless herd and not start a stampede, but start it in a slow walk to a solution. The first thing I hope everybody will understand and stop bringing the posters to the floor saying how much is enough when we all should know by now, $645 billion is enough. We are not talking about money. Anybody that proposes spending more money is going to have to find it somewhere else, because the appropriators have got their orders. I think the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), as chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, is doing a good job. My fuss is not with him, but it is with the leadership of the House that seems to not be willing to bring this thing to a culmination. Now, it seems to me, and I have listened today, there is an agreement within reach on ergonomics, there is an agreement within reach on school construction, in the appropriate places by the appropriate leaders. There is an agreement in place on immigration, if we can just find that appropriate place. The one area that we do not have an agreement though, and it seems from what I have heard said, is in the area of Medicare and the BBA fix. That is what we are saying. To the gentleman from California, the chairman of the committee that made the speech a moment ago, there is a willingness on this side to reopen that particular part of the tax bill and do a little better job for our hospitals, our rural hospitals, our nursing homes, and others. There is some additional knowledge in this House, other than the chairman of the committee, the same man that wrote the BBA fix in the first place in 1997, that had to be convinced to do more at that time, and I see the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) on the floor who has been a tremendous leader in the Rural Health Care Coalition. We know this. We can have a better agreement, and that is one that we must get done, or we will not finish by the election, or by January 1, unless we can do more. So in the spirit of bipartisanship, there is a large number of Democrats; in fact, there are 137 on my side of the aisle that said we should not spend $645 billion this year, we should only spend $633 billion.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this rule. I think we ought to do 1-day rules and 1-day CRs, but more importantly, I think it is time for us to reach the compromises necessary and finish up the work of the 106 Congress. We are all asking why we are here today, and we have different views on it. According to ``The Baltimore Sun,'' it is because of Republican gridlock in Congress again. Once again, leaders of this House are finding they cannot get their way. Whatever happened to the fine art of compromise? I know my friends on the other side of the aisle would differ with that and have a different opinion of that. Both sides are right, perhaps. But perhaps a little practical constitutional reminder is in order for us today. You, we, cannot beat a President, unless we have two- thirds of the votes. The Constitution guarantees that under our separate, but coequal branches of government, that the only way the House of Representatives can win is to have two-thirds of the vote, no matter how we like or dislike a President, now or in the future. And we cannot get two-thirds of the vote, unless we are willing to work with at least some on the other side of the aisle which, unfortunately, our leadership has chosen not to do. Remember the budget resolution where all of this began? The President's budget called for $637 billion in spending, and you said you were going to hold discretionary spending to $625 billion and you complained about big spending Democrats, including we Blue Dogs, those of us in the Blue Dog Coalition proposed a budget suggesting a compromise of $633 billion. This budget was supported by 138 Democrats and 37 Republicans. If 45 more Republicans had joined with 137 of us, perhaps the debate would be a little different. Perhaps we would not even be here. If the leadership in Congress had been willing to work with us, we could have had a credible bipartisan budget that would have held spending down to $633 billion. Instead, we are on a path to spend $645 billion or more next year, $12 billion more than the Blue Dogs suggested and $8 billion more than the President requested. Some compromise. Some compromise, spending $8 billion more than the President. And yet my colleagues, some continue to come to the floor and say how much more are we going to spend. Well, they have won on this issue. When we passed the rule last week on the foreign operations bill, they voted to raise, at least some, not all, a majority of us, not me, voted to raise the caps to $645 billion. The issue of how much we are going to spend is a moot issue. I would much rather have held it to $633 billion. My Republican colleagues wanted to go to $645 billion. The President wanted to keep it at $637 billion. So let us not have any more of this because any of these issues that spend more money, my colleagues should know by now that the rules of the House suggest that if we spend more than $645 billion, we will sequester all spending next year to bring the level back to $645 billion if we mean it, and I hope we mean it. So let us quit talking about that money is the issue. I do not know how the leadership in the House honestly can complain that Democrats are big spenders when they have already voted appropriation bills and sent to the President spending $11 billion more than the President requested. I do not understand how voting to increase spending by $21 billion on programs that a prominent Republican has identified as low priority, unnecessary, or wasteful spending is acceptable, but asking for $5 billion more for education makes someone a big spender. Under the plan being pushed by leaders in the Congress, we will squander the surpluses that should be used to deal with a variety of my priorities including eliminating our national debt. Leadership is taking credit for debt reduction that was achieved only because their proposals to use the entire budget surplus for tax cuts was defeated. The recent conversion to debt reduction rhetoric after 2 years of rhetoric to the contrary comes after their tax cut proposals fell flat. The cover of the September 16 issue of Congressional Quarterly described the leadership strategy with this headline: ``Desperate to find a way out, GOP settles for debt reduction.'' Mr. Speaker, we easily could have bipartisan agreement on death tax relief, on marriage tax penalty relief, on a Medicare prescription drug benefit, a Patients' Bill of Rights, campaign finance reform legislation; yet this Congress will adjourn without enacting any legislation on any of these issues. The leadership has chosen to take these issues off the table. They have won on these issues. They are off the table. But we will not go home, we will not go home without making sure we have given our hospitals, nursing homes, and home health care providers the relief that they need. That is the dividing issue, the one that must be worked out. There is strong support among Democrats for meaningful estate tax relief that would repeal the death tax for all estates less than $4 million and reduce rates for all other estates by 20 percent immediately. This proposal could be signed into law. But according to the Wall Street Journal, some in the Republican leadership rejected that proposal because they are afraid that ``the GOP would lose a powerful election-year issue for its candidates.'' And they might be right. We heard a lot of rhetoric Saturday about the need for a national energy policy; yet we are about to conclude another Congress without any effort on the part of the House to develop a national consensus on energy policy. We could have taken a small step by adopting the tax incentives for domestic oil and gas producers that were included in the Senate version of the tax bill, but for some reason the leadership of the House opposed this bipartisan effort as well. Surely we can reach a bipartisan agreement now if leaders of the Congress are willing to work with the President to find compromises on the remaining issues. But I have to ask, why did the congressional leadership not accept the President's offer to meet yesterday to discuss an agreement on responsible tax relief and a Medicare package that provides assistance to health care providers as well as beneficiaries, instead of providing over 40 percent of the funding for HMOs? Let me repeat so that all of us can understand and hear clearly, particularly the leaders of the Congress: we will not have a final budget agreement that allows us to leave here without making sure we have given our health care providers the relief that they must have, nor without satisfactory compromises regarding school construction, class size reduction, immigration, and the other issues remaining. We would not need to be here on October 30 if 2 or 3 months ago, when this work should have been happening, the Republican leadership had been willing to work with us in a bipartisan spirit on a fiscally- responsible budget that funded priority programs including Medicare, provided reasonable tax relief, and paid down the debt. Unfortunately, for some reason the leadership has chosen a course that has produced gridlock and inaction. Mr. Speaker, it is your move. The ball is in your court. Do your job and you will find a lot of bipartisan support, especially if you were to ask. This is the message that I hope that all of us will take. It is time to quit the fingerpointing. We are down to the last few issues. Some of them are very, very important; but all of them must be compromised. It is unrealistic to believe that anyone, the President or the House, can get their way absolutely. But a reasonable compromise on all of these issues could be reached this afternoon if only we would find the willingness to sit down and to talk to each other, a willingness that we have not been willing to do for the last 2 years, 4 years or 6 years. That is why we are here today. Again, we cannot, we cannot defeat this President, the next President, or any President unless we have two-thirds of the vote. We cannot get two-thirds of the vote unless we work for it.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding me the time. The gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), the last speaker, just answered a big part of the previous question of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth). The reason we cannot go back and undo the budgets now is that there is only one really left. We have spent the money. We have different opinions as to whether we have spent it wisely, but it is done. My point that I am trying to make is it is done. We have set the caps of spending of $645 billion. If we wanted to spend less, we should have done it with the budget resolution that would have had the kind of support to carry us through. We did not do that. But that is done. I wanted to emphasize where I am coming from and where I think a lot of Members on both sides of the aisle are coming from regarding the health care, the Medicare relief bill. For the rurals, the urbans, the teaching hospitals, what I would like to have seen us done is add a 2nd year of full market basket update for inpatient hospital services. That needs to be done to get consistency. Restore cuts for skilled nursing facilities for 2 years, not just one. Restore cuts for home health providers for 2 years, not just one. Improve the formula for Medicare disproportionate share hospitals to equalize payments to rural hospitals. Now, many were already saying, then you are wanting to spend more money. No. I believe that we could have given less to the HMOs and more to our hospitals, and we would have had a better package. That is my opinion. I suspect that there are more that share that opinion, because I really believe, and more of the folks believe, that that is what we should have. We have the argument of consistency. Our rural hospitals and others that are struggling to keep their doors open, we give them 1 year. The atmosphere that we are in today, what kind of planning can you give. Why could we not give a 2-year certainty on this and then start working soon after the next election as to where we truly go with health care policy? We need to do this. That is why I say I think people are having some real wrong ideas and thoughts that we are not going to be able to work this and several other areas out on the Medicare relief bill.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I am constantly amazed at the rhetoric on this floor. The vote on the rule and the previous question has nothing to do with minimum wage, but it has everything to do with correcting another mistake. It has been acknowledged that a mistake was made. Quite frankly, there are a lot of mistakes being made the way we are legislating around here, but this is an honest mistake that was made that is being corrected, and there is no disagreement from anyone on correcting that mistake. By defeating the previous question, it will allow us to correct another mistake. The vote on this rule is a vote about allowing the House to work in a bipartisan way to provide our rural and urban hospitals, teaching hospitals, home health providers, nursing homes and beneficiaries that they get the assistance and the relief that they need. By voting against the previous question, we can vote on a responsible package that corrects the shortcomings of the Medicare package that the Republican leadership put together last week, a mistake. Let me remind everyone, the same people that have been eloquently defending their package of what they are doing are the same people that wrote the Balanced Budget Agreement of 1997. That ought to bother some of my friends on this side. The same people. Now, we should have a full hospital prospective payment system update for 2 years, not just 1. Our rural hospitals need certainty. They do not need the continued uncertainty. They have had themselves dug into a hole by the cuts of the Balanced Budget Agreement that the same people that wrote believe now is a new solution. It provides improving the formula for rural disproportionate share of hospitals. In addition, the provisions in the Republican-passed bill, the proposal that we can vote on in a moment, what we are trying to offer, would provide for a higher level of reimbursement for hospitals serving low-income individuals. All of us that represent those constituents know that is needed. It provides a 10 percent bonus for rural home health agencies to compensate for the high cost of travel, lower volume of patients seen per hour, and we know that is needed. It provides a 2-year delay in the 15 percent cut in payments for home health agencies instead of the Republicans' 1-year delay. Surely we can reach a bipartisan compromise on this. A mistake was made. A mistake was made. We can correct this mistake by voting down the previous question. Again, we keep talking about how do we resolve this? Why did the leadership not accept the President's offer to meet yesterday to discuss an agreement of responsible tax relief in a Medicare package that provides assistance to health care providers as well as beneficiaries instead of providing over 40 percent of the funding for HMOs? Why did we not? We keep blaming, talking about world series games and all of this. That is history. Yesterday, the President was there. Let me repeat what I said during the previous debate so our leaders can hear clearly, because they have failed to hear previously equally blunt statements. We will not have a final agreement that allows us to leave here without making sure we have given our health care providers the relief that they must have. We can do this in a bipartisan way. We can get over this anger, we can get over all of whatever it is that we are talking about. That is what this vote is on the previous question. Vote down the previous question and allow us to correct a mistake in Medicare and Medicaid for our hospitals and providers and nursing homes.