[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 53 (Wednesday, March 22, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H3427-H3435]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PERMISSION FOR ALL COMMITTEES AND SUBCOMMITTEES TO SIT ON TODAY AND THE 
              BALANCE OF THE WEEK DURING THE 5-MINUTE RULE

  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I move that all committees of the House and 
their subcommittees be permitted to sit on today and for the balance of 
the week while the House is meeting in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union under the 5-minute rule.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey] is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 30 
minutes of my time to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior].
  Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Armey] for 30 minutes.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, let me first apologize for the error in the 
first motion I presented. It was not as inclusive as I intended it to 
be, and now, in fact, we have the proper wording and a more inclusive 
motion on the floor.
  Let me say I understand, and I appreciate, that this makes it 
difficult for many of our Members. It is not something that I do 
happily. It is something I do because there is a need for it to be 
done.
  While I say that, let me again compliment all the Members of this 
body on both sides of the aisle for the enormously good-natured manner 
in which they have handled a very, very difficult work schedule for 
these past 75 or so days. I look forward, as much as any Member in this 
body, to the end of this 100-day period when we will have completed 
this legislative agenda and we will have passed it, which I fully 
expect that we will do. I look forward, as much as any Member of this 
body, for that period of time after, where we can go back to our home 
States and our home districts, and enjoy being with our own 
constituents and sharing with them an understanding of what it is we 
have done during these historic 100 days, and I have to say it has 
been, for me, a particular pleasure to enjoy the good humor, the good 
nature and the cooperative spirit that all Members of this body have 
demonstrated in undertaking and completing what, in everybody's memory, 
is the largest working agenda in the shortest period of time by this 
body.
  So, having said those things, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois [Mrs. Collins].
  (Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I, too, agree with the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior], that we should object to this 
request.
  First of all, as my colleagues know, this legislation, H.R. 4, is to 
me the most important legislation confronting the 104th Congress thus 
far. It contains sweeping changes to programs aiding the most 
impoverished and vulnerable members of our society, our children.
  This bill, the misnamed ``Personal Responsibility Act,'' does not do 
what it purports to do. Instead it is a hatchet act that cuts, slashes, 
and eliminates Federal programs for school nutrition, Aid to Dependent 
Children, child abuse prevention and treatment, child care, the Jobs 
Opportunities and Basic Skills Program, foster care, and others that 
are essential to enabling welfare recipients to get off welfare and 
more importantly, to safeguard the health and welfare of our kids. 
Sixty-three percent of all spending cuts already passed by this House 
directly affect low-income families and children, and this heartless 
bill goes even further.
  With such a critical issue affecting the lives of our children being 
debated under the 5-minute rule, it is absolutely impossible for 
Members to devote their full attention to this matter if they are 
attending to committee business. We cannot be at two places at one 
time, as the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior] has already said, and 
should not be forced to have to choose between participating in one of 
the most important issues confronting our Nation today and meeting 
committee responsibility.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, these past few months I have worked cooperatively 
with the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], to ensure that the 
committee's work has not been delayed, but welfare reform is too 
important to take a back seat to committee hearings, even to committee 
markups.
  I think it is a mean ploy that our committee has already scheduled 
hearings today concerning title IV of H.R. 11, the Family Reinforcement 
Act, at the same time we are doing welfare reform and proposals to cut, 
and also to reform, if my colleagues will, the Department of Health and 
Human Services at a time when we are considering welfare reform, if my 
colleagues want to call it that, and tomorrow our committee plans to 
hold a full committee markup on H.R. 1271, the Family Privacy Act.
  Now all of these matters are critically important, and I know that 
our 
[[Page H3428]] members on the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight want to be at those hearings, they want to be at those 
markups, but we cannot be at two places at one time.
  For that reason, Mr. Speaker, it just seems to me that, because this 
is a preeminent, important issue, I agree with the gentleman from 
Michigan that we would object to the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight sitting during this 5-minute rule.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I listened very intently to the remarks made by the 
gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins], and there is no doubt that 
she makes a good point. This is a matter of grave concern that we will 
have on the floor to all our Members, and it is for that reason, 
because we had that concern, that in this rule we do allow the Chairman 
of the Committee of the Whole to postpone votes, that we can collect 
votes at a point when we can come down and vote on amendments in a 
cluster vote of two or three votes and, thereby, alleviate the Members 
of the need to come to the floor every 20 minutes. I understand how 
difficult that is, and I want to express my personal appreciation on 
behalf of all our Members to the Committee on Rules for that 
thoughtfulness they displayed in putting this provision in the rule 
allowing that opportunity to the Chairman of the Committee of the 
Whole, which I hope will do a good deal to alleviate the strain of 
these work circumstances on our committee members that are sitting 
during the consideration of that bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I again reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Before I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Olver], let 
me just say, Mr. Speaker, that, while I appreciate the argument my 
friend from Texas makes, let us be very clear that what he is 
suggesting, by collecting votes, and having them grouped together and 
voted on at the end of a certain period, that that breaks up the tempo 
of a committee markup; it certainly breaks up the tempo of a committee 
hearing where it does not even apply, where we are inviting people to 
come in and testify from around the country, to listen, to legislate 
what is going to be acted upon, and here they are, sitting while 
Members are shuffling back and forth from this floor back to committee 
session.
  Mr. Speaker, it is just not a good way to do business. It is not an 
efficient way to do business. It is not a cost-effective way to do 
business. It is not a courteous way to do business. And it just would 
not work; some things are just clearly obvious, and this is one of 
them. This is not a day to be conducting committee business while we 
are on the floor voting every 20 minutes in probably one of the most, 
if not the most, important bills we will have this session.
  So the argument that we are going to collect votes over a certain 
period of time, and then have Members vote on it, actually breaks the 
pattern of the voting, it does not allow them to do secondary 
amendments in a way that makes sense. It is just not feasible.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Olver].
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Bonior], my good friend, the minority whip, for yielding this time to 
me, and I must say I agree totally with him on the points that he has 
made about the confusion that has evolved in trying to deal in open, 
good consideration in committee as well as here on the floor in the 
Committee of the Whole. But the minority whip made the point in his 
opening statement that this was the low point in the procedural debates 
here in the House, in the Committee of the Whole and in the House, so 
far this year, and then the majority leader withdrew his motion and 
offered a motion which is worse in two ways.
  So, it is worse in two ways. The first way is in that it also 
included today, which was clearly the error of the majority leader in 
not having included today, Wednesday, in the original motion. So the 
confusion is added to today, in Wednesday's debate, but then the 
clustering of votes, which makes it worse again in the way that the 
clustering of votes creates a situation here of people not knowing, not 
having been able to be present, and having taken part in the debate and 
hearing the debate because they are in committees. This is to allow the 
committees to continue their work when the most important work that we 
can be doing is going on here on the floor on this very, very important 
piece of legislation.
                              {time}  1115

  So that the clustering of votes negates the possibility of Members 
taking part in debate in this area while the action is going on in 
committees. We are starting debate on the amendments on the welfare 
reform bill, which is as important a piece of legislation as any piece 
of legislation that we considered in the 103d or the 104th Congress. 
There was nothing more important--not the crime bill, not the deficit 
reduction bill, not the primary and secondary education bill, not the 
balanced budget amendment of this year. We can take the primary and 
secondary education bill, which we debated for many days under an open 
rule, where Members came up for 5 minutes as important amendments were 
debated for 2 hours, the less important ones for only 10 or 20 minutes, 
and then a vote. Yes, it was possible to go and deal with things in the 
committee at the same time because there were long debate periods on 
very important amendments that were before us.
  But in this motion, what we have is debate on the welfare bill coming 
up with 31 amendments, with 20 minutes of debate allowed on them, and 
at the same time the majority leader has put forward a motion to allow 
every single committee of the Congress to be sitting, going through 
markups and going through hearings at exactly the same time we are 
going to be debating that extremely important piece of legislation.
  I think this is indeed truly the low point in the procedural 
operations of the 104th Congress, and I certainly hope that this motion 
will not be adopted.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the chairman of the Committee on 
Rules.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the majority leader for this time.
  I have to say that I am a little bit surprised, because the reason we 
provided for cluster voting in the rule was to accommodate both 
Republicans and Democrats. We did that after consultation. We took the 
language directly out of the rule the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Bonior] offered when we debated the defense authorization bill. It is 
the identical language. Now, we do this when we have a series of 
amendments over a very long period of debate, after consulting with the 
minority, which is what the gentleman did in consulting with us. We had 
no objection to that, and we are simply following previous procedure.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield so I may clarify my 
comments?
  Mr. SOLOMON. Yes, I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from 
Michigan.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, my comments were not to what the gentleman 
did in the Rules Committee. I thought the distinguished majority leader 
was referring to allowing cluster votes within the
 committees. That is where I was addressing my remarks.

  Mr. SOLOMON. I do not think so. I am told by a nod of the head that 
we are only talking about cluster voting here on the floor.
  If the gentleman would look further, there are a number of titles in 
the bill. For instance, title I is block grants and temporary 
assistance for needy families. There are 8 amendments, and it might be 
the prerogative of the Chair to want to cluster some of those votes 
after consulting with the minority and then move on to title II, which 
is the Child Protection Program, and so on. I think that makes a lot of 
sense. I know the gentleman has in the past agreed with me on that, or 
I should say I have agreed with him when it was his proposition. Is 
that correct?
  Mr. BONIOR. No, I would say the gentleman is correct on this. If I 
have misunderstood the gentleman, I correct myself on the floor. I 
thought he was 
[[Page H3429]] referring to votes being clustered in committee, and in 
fact if we are going to allow clustered voting on the floor, that is 
helpful, but it does not address the primary concern of continuity in 
allowing Members to be in more than one place at one time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that colloquy, 
because I think it is helpful to all the membership.
  I would say that during the course of this debate I am going to be on 
the floor all the time. It is going to take 3 days, and I would be 
surprised if there are 5 or 10 Members on the floor during any one of 
these debates on any of these important amendments.
  So I do not think we are going to be disrupting the House by letting 
committees meet.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time so we could 
clarify this issue.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise].
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Democratic whip for that time.
  My objection to this process is that in every town meeting I have 
been in and every poll I have seen, national, State, or whatever, 
welfare reform is certainly up there at the top of the agenda that 
everyone has. Yet what we have, Mr. Speaker, is a process of a limited 
rule in and of itself. Of 160 amendments that were sought, I believe 
only 31 will be offered. Of 93 that were Democratically offered, only 5 
Democratic amendments will be permitted.
  So that is bad enough. But then what we get is a situation where no 
amendment will be debated more than 20 minutes, with a vote to follow. 
I appreciate certainly that the majority leader said those votes will 
be clustered. That is a convenience, but that does not help those of us 
who would like to be on the floor involved in the debate on many of 
these issues, because if at the same time, as I should be right now, I 
am at the Government Reform Committee, we are tied up in a committee 
performing vital committee business at the same time these issues are 
being debated.
  I do not think it is too much to ask where there
   is an objection from the Democrat minority as to the committee 
sitting, and it is not an objection that has been raised frivolously. 
In fact, every time there has been consultation with the Democrat 
minority, the Democrat minority has seen fit to enter into an agreement 
with the Republican majority.

  I am concerned about some other things, too. These are major issues 
that are going to be raised here on the floor. We are going to be 
talking about abortion, we are going to be talking about nutrition, 
including school lunch and school breakfast, we are going to be talking 
about disabled children, we are going to be talking about requiring 
work, we are going to be talking about job training, and we are going 
to be talking about whether young women should have their benefits 
terminated because they are under 18 and pregnant. These are all vital 
issues. Yet, how effectively can we be debating those issues if at the 
same time many of us have conflicting committee responsibilities?
  I have to say that in some cases the Republican majority has solved 
my problem because I would have liked to have seen an amendment 
permitted that would have greatly restored the School Lunch and School 
Breakfast Program. Well, they did not make that in order. We will not 
be able to bring that up on the floor. So they took care of my problem, 
and I guess in a way I ought to thank them, because now I do not have 
to worry about being on the floor for the school nutrition debate. That 
will not be here.
  I obviously do not need to worry too much about being on the floor, I 
guess, on a very controversial amendment that I see has been made in 
order that would outlaw fugitive felons from receiving benefits from 3 
welfare programs. That is a gutsy one, and I know everybody will want 
to be here for that one. We might have been willing to trade some time 
so we could have debated school lunches and school breakfasts.
  But, in closing, I just hope the American public understands, Mr. 
Speaker, that while this is a very important debate, all Members will 
not be able to be on the floor for this debate, because the Republican 
majority has said we are going to have to be in committees voting at 
the same time. It makes it very difficult, and I would hope that the 
Republican majority would withdraw this motion.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Talent].
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  It is my intention to be on the floor for this debate as much as 
possible. I have been listening to the procedural sparring. I heard the 
gentlewoman from Illinois debate basically the merits of the bill, and 
I wanted to be able to respond to her points without regard to the 
procedural sparring that is going on. I have a few minutes to do it, 
and I appreciate the gentleman's yielding this time to me for that 
purpose.
  Mr. Speaker, I think what we are going to consider here today is an 
important piece of legislation. It is a bill that is designed to 
replace the existing failed welfare system with a system that is based 
on principles that work, time-honored principles that have helped 
people out of poverty and into self-sufficiency--work, family 
responsibility, marriage, all the things that the existing system has 
been running down for so long.
  What we have done in the last 30 years can really be summarized in 
this way: We have spent close to $5 trillion on the Federal and State 
level on means-tested entitlement programs, welfare programs in the 
broadest sense, and what we have gotten is not a reduction in poverty. 
In fact, Mr. Speaker, it is important to understand that poverty went 
down steadily in the post-war era until 1965, until the Great Society 
began. In that period, welfare spending has gone up tenfold, and the 
poverty rate, if anything, has increased slightly. Certainly it has not 
gone down. What we have gotten for all that spending and what we have 
gotten for all that effort is an explosion in the out-of-wedlock birth 
rate. It is now one out of three. One out of three kids in the United 
States is born out of wedlock. In 1965 it was between 6 and 7 percent. 
We have gotten a sixfold increase in the out-of-wedlock birth rate.
  What does the bill do about it? As I said before, the emphasis or the 
basis of the welfare system is on work, on family, on responsibility. 
The first thing we do is, we are no longer going to pay cash benefits 
to teen moms under the age of 18. It is stupid, Mr. Speaker, to send a 
check of $300 or $400 every month to a young mom and leave her in the 
environment in which she is probably being exploited and with which she 
certainly is not coping. Instead, we give the money to the States and 
we say, ``Care for those families, but do it in a way that encourages 
family, that encourages work.''
  There are a lot of alternatives the States will be able to choose, 
the kind of alternatives that have worked over the centuries in welfare 
systems--supervised settings like maternal group homes and adoption. 
These kinds of things will work out. They will lift people out of 
poverty instead of miring them in it.
  The bill has very strong work provisions, and there are amendments to 
make those provisions stronger because work is an important part of 
dignity. It is an important part of making welfare a two-way street. If 
you do a work program properly, Mr. Speaker, it serves several goals. 
First of all, it enables you to determine who does not really need 
welfare, in a nonbureaucratic way, because if you have got to work 30 
or 35 hours a week picking up trash from the side of a highway or doing 
a job like that and you have other alternatives, you will get off 
welfare. It is important that we target the work provisions on that 
part of the welfare population which is most employable. The bill does 
that.
  The bill also has an overall goal of breaking the
   locked grip of Washington bureaucrats on the welfare system and 
returning it back to the people. It is not a question of trusting the 
States; it is a question of trusting the American people. Put the 
control over power and resources closer to them, and they will adapt 
the welfare system to really care for the needy neighbors and needy 
people amongst them.

  I want to address very briefly arguments that we have heard and we 
are 
[[Page H3430]] going to hear during the course of this debate about 
this bill. People say that we are cutting welfare spending. We are not 
cutting welfare spending. When this bill is finished, the spending on 
the welfare state, the Federal commitment to means-tested welfare 
programs will grow by about the rate of inflation every year. What we 
are doing is abandoning Federal control, the Federal locked grip over 
this system, and returning that to the people, and we are rebasing this 
system on principles that will really work.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. I want to close by saying this: 
This bill is, I think, going to be developed along the following lines: 
We are trying to talk about what this bill is going to do, about the 
very basic, fundamental problems with the existing system that are just 
insurmountable. And everybody agrees the existing system is a total 
failure. The President of the United States said we have to end welfare 
as we know it. Did anybody say, ``No, let's continue welfare as we know 
it? We like welfare as we know it''?
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, we have a bill that will take substantial 
steps in that direction. That is what we are going to be talking about.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TALENT. If I have time left, I will be glad to yield.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). The time of the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Talent] has expired.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Talent].
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I will close, but first I will yield to my 
friend, the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, I know that the gentleman from Missouri is 
sincere in his efforts, but I have a serious reservation about some 
language that is in the bill. That has been described as promoting 
abortion for women who are pregnant and under 18 years of age, or 
younger, and that has been described by the National Right to Life and 
by the Catholic Bishops Conference and others as promoting abortion.
  My review of that language clearly says that is what it does, and I 
do not think that is the way to reduce the number of children that are 
on welfare. I do not think that killing them is the way to do it, and 
that is what this bill does.
  Mr. TALENT. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to 
address that point, and then I will close my remarks.
  It is described by nobody else who is pro-life in that fashion, if I 
may say this to the gentleman. None of the other pro-life groups 
believe the language will have that effect.
  Let us see what the language does. It says that the States get a 
little extra bonus in the block grant if they reduce illegitimacy 
without a proportionate increase in abortion. Now, for every increase 
in abortion that you have, it moves you backward in your attempt to get 
the money. This is for the first time in the Federal statutes that we 
have a formula which discourages both illegitimacy and abortion. That 
is why the gentleman from California [Mr. Stark], who offered an 
amendment to take it out, said that the formula we have in the bill is 
a bounty on abortion. That is how he described it in the Congressional 
Daily today, because it does discourage abortion, and everybody else 
who is pro-life thinks that. I have a difference of opinion with some 
of my colleagues on this side of the aisle. I do not know how a 
provision can not be pro-life if it says to the States that you get 
extra money for reducing illegitimacy but not if you do it by 
increasing abortion.
                              {time}  1130

  So I would just say that to the gentleman.
  Let me close my remarks by saying this: The debate is going to be on 
the one hand those who support this bill, and I think you will find 
Members on both sides ending up voting for it, trying to say what we 
are doing with this bill to rebase this failed system on marriage and 
work and family; and then people on the other side basically saying, 
nope, if we do not continue doing it the way we have been doing it or 
maybe expanding the existing welfare state without changing any of the 
incentives, we are abandoning the poor.
  Have the faith to believe that we can help people without destroying 
their families. We can have a welfare system that helps people without 
destroying their families and their incentive to work and to be 
responsible. That is what we are trying to do. I would urge all 
Members, we all know the existing system is failing. If you cannot lead 
in the effort to change it, at least follow. Or, if you cannot do that, 
at least get out of the way. Do not perpetuate the myth that if we do 
not keep doing it the way we have been doing it, which nobody likes, 
that somehow we cannot fundamentally change the system at all.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me first say to my colleague from Missouri that 
nobody believes the present system is worth keeping. Everyone on both 
sides of the aisle disagrees with the present system. We just have 
different approaches on how to change it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
Volkmer].
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, just on that point, we are supporting a 
substitute that gives us real reform in welfare, that gets people back 
to work and off the welfare roles, is that correct?
  Mr. BONIOR. That is absolutely correct.
  Mr. VOLKMER. So we all recognize we need reform and welfare.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to what is being discussed here today, 
because I think we need every possible person on the House floor to 
hear some issues being discussed, which I frankly think are being too 
broadly ignored. One of the reasons I am going to vote against the 
rule, for instance, is because while I certainly want the existing 
welfare system to be changed, I am very unhappy about the fact that the 
Committee on Rules refused to make in order my amendment which would 
make the Federal Government pay for the welfare and education costs 
associated with allowing refugees into this country, rather than 
dumping the costs of educating and training those refugees onto State 
and local governments.
  It seems to me that when the Federal Government allows refugees to 
come into this country, that is a foreign policy decision. I would ask 
why under that situation local taxpayers should get stuck with paying 
the tab to educate and train those refugees who are allowed into this 
country for foreign policy reasons?
  I appreciate very much the fact that the Democrats on the Committee 
on Rules and two Republicans voted to allow my amendment to be offered. 
I, for the life of me, do not understand why the other Republicans did 
not. There is nothing partisan to this issue. This has nothing to do 
with whether you are a Democrat or Republican. It has to do with 
whether or not you think the local taxpayers ought to be stuck with 
financial responsibilities that rightly belong to the Federal 
Government. It seems to me they should not.
  So I think there are a lot of reasons why we need to have people on 
this floor listening to the debate, because unless we do, we are not 
going to achieve the kind of understanding that you need in this House 
so that the Committee on Rules will not continue to make the kind of 
mistakes that they made in disallowing my amendments, for instance.
  No one suggested the existing welfare system ought to be kept. It 
ought to be junked. It seems to me that we ought not in the process 
increase the burden on local governments.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff].
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I have to acknowledge that proceeding with this bill 
while committees are in session will certainly create some time 
conflicts for Members, and they are going to have to work very hard to 
get back and forth between their obligations. That is not new. We have 
been doing that for most 
[[Page H3431]] of the last several weeks. But I wanted to say most 
pointedly that I am proud of the fact that it is my party that is 
bringing up comprehensive welfare reform for the first time in my 
memory of more than 6 years as a Member of this House on the House 
floor for consideration.
  I noted that the respected whip from the Democratic Party said both 
parties agree that the welfare system is not working right. It is a 
matter of which reform plan will you choose. But in those 6 years that 
I served here with a Democratic Party majority, I never saw a plan 
offered on the House floor. Specifically, with respect to the rules, 
not only rules with respect to meeting while committees are in session, 
but rules with respect to amendments, their party controlled the whole 
process. Frankly, they did nothing, and I think therefore it is weak to 
say ``We object to the rules of procedure'' when the issue is finally 
brought to the floor by Republicans.
  But I want to add, Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned that the debate 
on the issue of welfare reform may have been seriously marred by 
remarks I am told were made on the House floor last night. I am 
informed that one Member charged that the Republican welfare reform 
plan was akin to the Nazis attacking minority groups during the 
Holocaust.
  Mr. Speaker, there is legitimate debate on this issue. It is 
admittedly a controversial and difficult issue. I do not agree with 
every single provision that is in the Republican bill currently. I will 
probably vote for this bill because I think we need to get this process 
moving, and there are many more steps in this process before we have a 
final bill. But I think that suggesting that a difference of opinion 
and a difference of approach as to how to repair the system and how to 
be--I think that equating a difference of point of view and a 
difference of approach and a difference of support between different 
plans to the Nazis and the Holocaust is a serious insult to all of 
those people of all different races who went through the Holocaust 
under the Nazi regime.
  I want to conclude by saying I hope the remarks I was told were 
uttered last night were incorrect. I hope I am wrong about the 
information that I received. If I am right, however, I hope that Member 
will have the good grace to come back to the House floor and apologize 
to the Holocaust victims for making such an analogy.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my 
distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons], the 
ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to object and to speak against the proposal of 
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey] to allow committees to meet while 
we are discussing this very important bill. All of us know that every 
Member of the Congress wants to be informed about the number of votes 
that he or she is going to be required to cast, and he or she cannot 
possibly be adequately informed with having to be in committee meetings 
at the same time this is going on on the House floor.
  Mr. Speaker, one of the objections and complaints that I hear about 
the House of Representatives is the sparsity, and I hope the cameras 
will pan this place right now, of the people who are on the floor and 
who pay attention to debate. It is a scandal that we are not here when 
important business is going on in the House.
  So I think we ought to turn down the suggestion of the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Armey] that Members be allowed and be required to be in 
committee meetings, rather than being here when this is being 
discussed.
  This is perhaps the most important substantive piece of legislation 
that this 104th Congress will address, because it affects not only the 
lives of millions of people in existence right now, but it will set a 
pattern for American lives way into the future. This is a controversial 
piece of legislation.
  Let me correct the Record. Last year the President put forth a 
substantial rewrite of the welfare laws. Last year I, as chairman of 
the Committee on Ways and Means, introduced a comprehensive bill on the 
subject. Last year the Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Committee 
on Ways and Means had extensive hearings on that and many executive 
sessions on that markup. I regret that the press of business last year 
prevented the Democrats from bringing that bill to the floor.
  As acting chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means last year, I 
announced that the first order of business of the Committee on Ways and 
Means during this 104th Congress would be to take up welfare reform. I 
said it would take about 6 months for us to do the kind of work that 
needed to be done on this.
  We have had it rushed through the Committee on Ways and Means in 
about 2 weeks, 1 week in subcommittee, 1 week in full committee, 
meeting all night and all day on the subject. This is no time for 
responsible Members of Congress to be in committee meetings around this 
Capitol when they ought to be here on the floor paying attention to 
this debate and voting on this most important piece of legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask all Members to vote no on the motion of the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey], and I think I ought to explain this 
necktie I have on here, because it is a real departure from past 
neckties that I have worn on the House floor. But it is to remind me, 
and I hope to remind all viewers, that 80 percent of the people who are 
on welfare and who receive some benefit from welfare are children, 
infants, 80 percent. They are a part of the important future of 
America. All Members ought to be here to discuss that future.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson].
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say to my distinguished colleague that the press 
of business in the last Congress should not have prevented this 
important issue from coming up. I think we have certainly learned in 
the 104th Congress what the press of business is all about, and our 
votes on Monday, our votes on Friday, our late night hours. And this 
legislation, which we will be taking up today, has indeed had years of 
study, months of work, and has many people in this Congress involved in 
the drafting of this legislation for its inclusion in the Contract With 
America.
  Since the rule itself has come into question in this debate, for the 
first time in history H.R. 4 puts in the Federal statutes a financial 
incentive which will discourage both illegitimacy and abortion. Out of 
wedlock births of 32 percent. Thirty-two percent of the babies born in 
America are born out of wedlock, six times as large as 1965, when the 
welfare state really was created. Real welfare reform must change the 
system to encourage marriage and family, not illegitimacy.
  The Stark amendment was not placed in order, and I think for good 
reason, because it would have been that which would have pulled out the 
strong illegitimacy provisions included in H.R. 4. It is not simply 
conservative Republicans who are recognizing the need in welfare reform 
to address the systemic problems, the fundamental problems in the 
welfare system. Bill Moyers, former press secretary to Lyndon Baines 
Johnson, in many ways the architect of the modern welfare state, 
recently, and I think the Record needs to have this included, recently 
said this. He said:

       While reporting for a documentary on welfare, I interviewed 
     a 32-year-old grandmother whose 16-year-old daughter had a 
     two-year-old child and was expecting a second baby by yet a 
     different man. Three generations on welfare, no help from any 
     father, and they described it as normal, the only life they 
     knew or expected. This is one tragedy of welfare. When men 
     are left off the hook, the world of the single mother begins 
     to appear natural and inevitable.

  Moyers continues:

       I thought at the time, and still do, that it is right to 
     help children born into such circumstances, but wrong to let 
     the cycle go on repeating itself.

       And I imagined it would take shock treatment to stop it, 
     something like announcing that on a given day, 5 years hence, 
     after a massive publicity campaign so everyone would be 
     forewarned, there would be no more cash payments to unwed 
     teenagers or to women on welfare who already have one child.
                      [[Page H3432]] {time}  1145

  Moyers said:

       If this sounds heartless, dependency can be heartless, too. 
     And unfair to others. Welfare benefits now go to almost 4 
     million mothers who have almost 10 million children. All of 
     us know young women who would like to have children but don't 
     because they are single and earn too little from their jobs 
     to afford a child alone. It doesn't seem fair that they 
     should be paying for someone else to have children when they 
     feel unable to have one.

  Then Moyers concludes his comments by saying, this former press 
secretary for a Democratic President, the architect of the modern 
welfare state, he said:

       The Republicans have been challenging us to think about 
     such things. It would be a shame if they have to water down 
     the challenge. Their reforms may be flawed but not as flawed 
     as welfare itself.

  That is what H.R. 4 does. For the first time we end the entitlement 
nature of welfare. For the first time, real meaningful work 
requirements are included. For the first time, we are able to control 
the growth in welfare spending. But most fundamentally and most 
essentially, for the first time we begin to deal with the social 
problem of out-of-wedlock births.
  I support the majority leader's motion. I support the rule.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to 
control the rest of the time left to this side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from West Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on this 
side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). The gentleman from West 
Virginia [Mr. Wise] has 12\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Waters].
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the attempt of the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey] to allow the committees to meet while 
we are in debate on this important issue.
  As I recall it, it is the Republicans who required that we all attend 
all of our committee hearings, recording the votes to make sure that we 
are on record whether or not we attended. It is the Republicans who do 
not allow proxy voting so that those of us who would like to be here 
could indeed record our votes in committee. So they cannot have it both 
ways.
  Either they want Members to be involved in this or they want them to 
stay in the committees and be recorded and not be involved in this 
discussion.
  I wish it was mandatory for every Member to be on this floor. I wish 
it was mandatory for all of the networks to have to carry this debate. 
This is one of America's most important debates.
  Members will hear discussions from the Republicans where they talk 
about family values and they claim that they want to keep families 
together, that they are interested in providing education. I had two 
amendments that they would not make in order that would have given tax 
credits for those who get their GED, for those who would get their high 
school diplomas, tax credits for those who would be involved in getting 
married, but they said no in the Committee on Rules, those were not 
important values, when I tried to come before the Committee on Rules.
  I am just a little bit sick and tired of a lot of folks getting up on 
this floor, talking about change and what it takes to create change, 
and they do not know anything about welfare. Those who would give tax 
credits to people making $200,000 but will not give tax credits to a 
young mother who is trying to get educated cannot tell me anything 
about welfare.
  We need to deal with the root causes of what is going on. Yes, young 
people are involved in sexuality. Yes, young people are bombarded on 
television and other places about what it means to be fashionable in 
America. Yes, they want jobs. Yes, we have allowed jobs to be exported 
to Third World countries for cheap labor and people who want to work 
cannot find work.
  Yes, we have problems. And there are some dysfunctional families, and 
children who need support oftentimes do not have parents who are there 
for them. But should we penalize the children? Should we take away the 
lunches? Should we stop their opportunity to live and grow and be?
  This is a mean-spirited proposal and it goes much too far. We want 
change. We want reform. But we are not going to take food out of 
children's mouths. We want change, but we want child care for those 
mothers who want to work.
  You absolutely go too far and you are scaring America with what you 
do.
  I say listen to some of us who know something about this. I know 
because I was a child of a welfare family. My mother tried and she 
tried. She did not have any help. She could not get any child care. She 
could not get a job. She could not get any training, but she tried.
  I want to tell my colleagues, whatever America invested in me as a 
child on welfare, it has paid off. That is why I am here to speak for 
welfare children today.
  You are wrong in the proposal that you have.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Philadelphia, PA [Mr. Fox].
  Mr. FOX. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
  I rise to voice my concern over recent comments made by a Democrat 
Member regarding our welfare reform proposals. The Republican plan to 
reform our Nation's welfare system is a caring compassionate measure 
fashioned to encourage the work ethic which made this Nation great. It 
is designed to cut the fraud, waste, and abuse which have been the 
hallmark of a failed welfare system in the United States.
  Any attempt, as was made yesterday, to equate this proposal or the 
Republican Party to Nazi Germany and the atrocities of the Third Reich 
exceeds the bounds of propriety and is simply untrue.
  As a Member of Congress, an individual of the Jewish faith, I am 
troubled by such comments.
  Mr. Speaker, I understand there are times when we all get emotional 
in an attempt to advocate a position or espouse a particular view. 
However, we should never insult the men, women, and children who 
suffered through the crimes against humanity perpetrated by the Nazi 
regime by comparing what we are doing here to that kind of abomination.
  Nathaniel Hawthrone once wrote:

       No man, for any considerable period, can wear one face to 
     himself and another to the multitude without finally getting 
     bewildered as to which may be true.

  It is time my friends on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, to 
stop the scare tactics. With our food nutrition programs, we are 
actually going to feed more children more meals because we are 
eliminating the Federal bureaucracy and the 15-percent cost. We are 
capping it back to the States with only 5 percent administrative cost.
  Above all, welfare reform will encourage that those in need get the 
aid but those who should be working and can work get back to work with 
help through job counseling, job training, and job placement.
  The American people want welfare reform that eliminates fraud, abuse, 
and waste, and we will give them that.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Lewis], our deputy whip.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. I thank my friend and colleague, the gentleman 
from West Virginia [Mr. Wise], for yielding time to me.
  There have been two gentleman on the other side who have referred to 
what I said yesterday and I wanted to say exactly what I said 
yesterday, Mr. Speaker.
  I said yesterday and I say again today, I am reminded of a quote by 
the great theologian, Martin Niemoller, during World War II:

       In Germany, they first came for the Communists, and I 
     didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came 
     for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. 
     Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up 
     because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the 
     Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. 
     Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left 
     to speak up.

  I said yesterday, Mr. Speaker, this Republican proposal certainly is 
not 
[[Page H3433]] the Holocaust, but I am concerned and I must speak up.
  I urge my colleagues, open your eyes, read the proposal, read the 
small print, read the Republican contract.
  And I went on to say yesterday, they are coming for the children. 
They are coming for the poor. They are coming for the sick, the 
elderly, and the disabled. This is the Contract With America.
  I said to my colleagues, you have the ability, the capacity, the 
power to stop this onslaught. Your voice is your vote. Vote against 
this mean-spirited proposal. Raise your voice for the children, the 
poor, and the disabled.
  I say it again today, Mr. Speaker, for the Record.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have, and 
do I not have the right to close debate?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). The gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Armey] has 7 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from West Virginia 
[Mr. Wise] has 7 minutes remaining.
  The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey] has the right to close debate.
  Mr. ARMEY. Does the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise] have any 
more speakers?
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, as we say at home, the gentleman from ``West, 
by golly, Virginia.''
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
Cardin].
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from West Virginia for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to vote against the motion 
offered by the distinguished majority leader. It is important for 
Members to be on the floor as we discuss this most important bill on 
welfare reform.
  Let me just give my colleagues one reason. I have listened to my 
friends on the other side of the aisle talk about the underlying bill 
as a bill that requires work. I think we need to talk about this. I 
think that Members need to understand what is in the Republican bill.
  As I understand it, a person can be on welfare for 2 years, receive 
cash assistance and not work at all.
  As I understand, a person can be on cash assistance for 5 years in a 
State as long as they are complying with a work-related requirement as 
defined by the State, a work activity. And then there is no sanction 
against the States if they do not do that.
  As I understand the bill, there is no requirement on the States to 
provide any work opportunity for people that are receiving cash 
assistance.
  So I do not understand the Republican's statement that this bill 
requires work. And I think it is important that my colleagues be on the 
floor of the House, as we talk about this issue and other issues on 
welfare reform.
  It is only by that type of debate that we will understand what we are 
doing in welfare reform. And if we want to get a better bill, it is 
important for Members to be here on the floor as we debate these 
important issues.
  Please vote against the majority leader's motion.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Philadelphia, PA [Mr. Fox].
  Mr. FOX. Mr. Speaker, I think in this debate we have to make sure the 
American people realize that we should not be judging the success of 
the welfare program by how many people we have on AFDC, by how many 
people we have on food stamps, by how many people we have in public 
housing. As the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. J.C. Watts, has said, who 
is someone who knows about the system, we should be judging people by 
the success of our efforts, by how many people we are taking off AFDC, 
that we are taking off food stamps and that we are taking off public 
housing.
  We need to give them the opportunity so that the system we now have, 
which discourages savings, if you are on welfare you cannot save money, 
you cannot own property, and it discourages the mother from marrying 
the father. We want to change, under this bill, that kind of system, 
that will restore opportunity, restore the ethic of work and will 
return to the people a measure of dignity and a system that will be in 
fact one we can be proud of.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Ford].
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the distinguished 
majority leader's motion that is before the House today. I think it is 
very critical that all the Members of this body be present and hear the 
debate on both sides of the aisle, because it is very clear, as the 
Personal Responsibility Act is taken up today, it is clear to all of us 
that we must discuss with the American people how weak this bill is on 
work and how cruel it is to the children of this country.
  I do not think it is fair for the majority leader to come here today 
and to offer this motion simply because you told us, along with the 
Speaker of the House, the new leadership of this House, that we would 
have an opportunity to debate issues on this House floor and that we 
would not be able to use our proxies in committees and we would not 
have committee meetings going on at the same time that we would have 
crucial pieces of legislation that is before this body.
  I think it is very critical for us to have all Members present on the 
House floor. If not, have them available so they can come and see what 
this Personal Responsibility Act is doing to the children of this 
country.

                              {time}  1200

  They are just plain mean in their bill, and they know it. They do not 
want the Democrats to discuss what is going to be offered today. There 
are 31 amendments that have been placed in order by the Committee on 
Rules. Only five of those amendments are Democratic amendments. We do 
not have an opportunity to perfect the Personal Responsibility Act that 
is before the House today.
  Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to vote against the motion by 
the distinguished majority leader of the House. I would ask that my 
Democratic colleagues all be here to say today how cruel this welfare 
reform bill that the Republicans have offered is to American children.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Levin].
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, here is why I think everybody should be on 
the floor, why on this historic matter, this important debate, people 
should not be in various committees, but right here.
  There has been a lot of talk about various aspects, not enough 
discussion about the impact of the Republican bill on disabled children 
now receiving cash benefits through SSI. This chart spells it out very 
clearly.
  I just urge everybody to look. Under the Republican plan, 21 percent 
of the children now covered would continue to be covered, and 79 
percent would not be.
  There is abuse in the program, and I see the gentleman from Wisconsin 
here on our side. He has delved into this. There is abuse in the SSI 
program. It has been rampant, apparently, in several States, including 
Louisiana and Arkansas. However, it is a mistake to take those abuses 
and to completely redo this program, ending cash benefits for parents 
whose kids are disabled.
  There is a better way to do this. It is contained in the Deal bill. 
There is a better way to do it. We should get at the abuse, the abuse 
under the IFA program. We should eliminate from the rolls kids who have 
behavioral problems, who are not seriously disabled.
  However, the disabled kids of America should not be thrown out on the 
street. The disabled kids need some help. Their families want nothing 
but a little bit of assistance. In many cases one of the parents has 
stopped working so they can take care of this seriously ill child.
  Mr. Speaker, this program is income-related. We are talking about 
middle- and low-income families with a disabled kid, so when we talk 
about the harshness, look at this chart. It shows it. Members should 
talk to the families in their districts. Go beyond the numbers to the 
real people.
  The SSI provision in the Republican bill is not a humane approach; it 
is not an effective approach. We can do better. We can adopt the Deal 
bill, which pays attention to the need for reform, but for the needs of 
families of disabled kids.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  [[Page H3434]] Mr. Speaker, to recap, this is about the motion by the 
Republican majority to permit committees to sit under the 5-minute 
rule.
  Basically, the American public thinks welfare reform is one of the 
most significant issues we have before us. They are right. Yet, under 
this request, when the American public sees the C-SPAN cameras now 
panning the floor, which they appropriately are doing, and sees empty 
seats here, the reason, one of the major reasons, is because many 
Members of Congress have to be in their committees, because they are 
not able to be in their committees and on the floor at the same time.
  The usual procedure is that we permit committees to sit, except 
during special debate. In this particular case, with this particularly 
important debate, Members are still going to be forced to choose 
between their committee votes and the votes on the floor, during one of 
the most important debates that is taking place, particularly when we 
are only going to have 20 minutes to debate each item. We would urge 
rejection of this motion.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, long before the 1992 Presidential campaign the American 
people had begun to understand the mean horror in the lives of real 
people, real victims of a welfare system that had not only failed to 
eliminate poverty, but had created in the lives of too many of 
America's children the most awful, terrifying conditions. The American 
people had clearly understood that this failure was costly in the 
meanest of terms in the lives of real children, and demanded some 
change.
  President Clinton understood the American people in 1992 when he 
campaigned, and he campaigned aggressively on ending welfare as we know 
it. In fact, as I listened to candidate Clinton, I thought to myself 
``He sounds more like us than we do.'' I thought he meant it. I thought 
he was serious. He said he felt the pain. It was there and obvious for 
anybody to see how painful this disastrous failure was in the lives of 
real people, especially the children.
  He talked a good game. He did nothing. He did nothing. He did not 
even write a bill. In December 1993, very publicly, so publicly, in 
fact, that I as a member of the minority received a copy, 97 powerful 
Democrat majority committee and subcommittee chairmen sent their 
President a letter.
  In this letter they said ``Mr. President, if you dare to send to the 
Congress of the United States a welfare reform plan that is anything 
like what you said in your campaign, we will not only block that, but 
we will block your health plan.'' That letter is a matter of record. 
The press, of course, did not pay much attention to that letter, but 
the letter is there, and it is real. We all know about it.
  The President did nothing. Late in the last Congress, late, after the 
Contract With America was out, after the President saw, again, that the 
American people demanded an end to welfare as we know it, he sent a 
bill up here. We heard about a bill. It took me until just a week ago 
to find out where was the bill.
  Not one Democrat was willing to move that bill in committee for the 
President, nor was one Democrat willing to offer the President's bill, 
even to the Committee on Rules for consideration at this time. It was 
left for me to find the bill and offer it to the Committee on Rules so 
it could be considered.
  The time has come, Mr. Speaker, when we must move on this measure. 
The Members have been complaining that doing so is inconvenient. How 
inconvenient is it in the lives of those very children if we let this 
cruel, heartless system continue to prevail?
  They say they do not have the protection. At the beginning of the 
103d Congress, the Democrat rules specifically wrote away from every 
Member of this Congress the right to object to a committee sitting 
while the House was sitting under the 5-minute rule. They took that 
right away from us and told us if we did not like it, we could lump it. 
They said in so many words ``We don't care about your minority 
rights.'' That was their rules.
  We corrected that. In an extraordinary period of time where we are 
moving extraordinary product, extraordinary legislation, that has 
suffered an extraordinary delay because of the timidity of the Democrat 
Party, the hostility to reform of the Democrat party, we have now, in 
compliance with these rules, come and asked this House to vote, vote 
whether nor not we will allow committees to meet while the House meets 
under the 5-minute rule.
  Would I had had such a privilege under a Democrat majority just a 
year ago. Would I had been given that much regard to the rights of the 
minority, in a Democrat majority just 1 year ago. However, their rules 
did not allow that opportunity for me, as a minority.
  Mr. Speaker, I have listened to this complaining about this 
inconvenience for an hour. I do not care to listen anymore. What I care 
to do, Mr. Speaker, is to make two final points. The time has come for 
us to combine, as Bill Moyers has said so eloquently, some modicum of 
understanding with some genuine compassion for the children that are 
the victims of this cruel system that so many people want to defend, 
and do it now. The time has come to do that, even, yes, if the doing of 
it comes at some inconvenience to ourselves in the next 2 days.
  Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the preferential motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). All time has expired.
  Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the 
preferential motion.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the preferential motion 
offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey].
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 227, 
nays 190, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 253]

                               YEAS--227

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     [[Page H3435]] Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--190

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Laughlin
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Barcia
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Brownback
     Chenoweth
     Clinger
     Davis
     Edwards
     Livingston
     Meehan
     Meek
     Minge
     Portman
     Schumer
     Towns
     Tucker
     Williams

                              {time}  1232

  Mr. BEVILL changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. SOUDER changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  

                          ____________________