David Thomas: “I had not planned to speak, but I do want to put the statements of the gentleman from Michigan in context. He was one of…”

“I had not planned to speak, but I do want to put the statements of the gentleman from Michigan in context. He was one of the 14 who voted against the bill originally. There were 408 Members who supported it. Mr. Speaker, on April 4 he sent out a Dear Colleague letter that said, ``Why the rush to bring H.R. 483 to the floor this week?'' He just in the well stated, ``Why the rush on moving forward with this legislation?'' June 30, today, is the expiration date for this program. I would think that is why the rush argument has been laid to rest. As far as scope is concerned, we said it was going to be available to 50 States. The majority on the other side of the aisle, in their wisdom, decided to contest that; since the 50 States was extending it to the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, as according to the Social Security Act, they were going to argue that was out of scope, so we simply went to the Committee on Rules to make sure that we could include the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico in the scope. As to the GAO study, I think the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] knows that we do not need legislation to get a GAO study. A Member just has to ask.”