[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 115 (Wednesday, July 31, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H9388-H9392]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
WAIVING REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 4(B) OF RULE XI WITH RESPECT TO
CONSIDERATION OF A CERTAIN RESOLUTION
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 492 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 492
Resolved, That the requirement of clause 4(b) of rule XI
for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee
on Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is
waived with respect to a resolution reported before August 1,
1996, providing for consideration or disposition of a
conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 3734) to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 201(a)(1) of
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1997.
motion to adjourn
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I offer a preferential motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hefley). I offer a preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Bonior moves that the House do now adjourn.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior].
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. BONIOR. 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 50,
nays 350, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 32, as follows:
[Roll No. 378]
YEAS--50
Abercrombie
Bonior
Brown (OH)
Clay
Clyburn
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Coyne
Dellums
Dicks
Dingell
Engel
Fazio
Filner
Foglietta
Frank (MA)
Gephardt
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Hoyer
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kennedy (MA)
LaFalce
Lantos
Lewis (GA)
McDermott
McNulty
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Mink
Moakley
Neal
Oberstar
Olver
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Rush
Schroeder
Slaughter
Stockman
Thompson
Towns
Velazquez
Volkmer
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wilson
NAYS--350
Ackerman
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (FL)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Costello
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeLauro
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fields (LA)
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Geren
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green (TX)
Greene (UT)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Longley
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McKinney
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Molinari
Mollohan
Moorhead
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nadler
Nethercutt
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Obey
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Regula
Riggs
Rivers
Roberts
Roemer
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roth
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Sabo
Salmon
Sanders
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Schumer
Scott
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Spence
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Stokes
Studds
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornberry
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torres
Traficant
Upton
Vento
Visclosky
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
Zeliff
Zimmer
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
DeFazio
NOT VOTING--32
Brown (CA)
Buyer
Chapman
Collins (IL)
Cooley
Cox
DeLay
Dickey
Flake
Ford
Fox
Gekas
Goodling
Gunderson
Hayes
Hutchinson
Istook
Johnson, Sam
LaTourette
McDade
McIntosh
Montgomery
Moran
Neumann
Owens
Richardson
Rogers
Souder
Torkildsen
Torricelli
Williams
Young (FL)
{time} 1243
Mr. BUNN of Oregon changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the motion to adjourn was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
personal explanation
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 378, I was in
the Banking Committee hearing and I did not hear the pager. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``Nay.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hefley). The gentleman from Colorado
[Mr. McInnis] is recognized for 1 hour.
[[Page H9389]]
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley],
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
(Mr. McINNIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks and include extraneous material.)
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 492 is an extremely narrow
resolution. The proposed rule merely waives the requirement of clause
4(b) of rule XI for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the
Committee on Rules on the same day it is presented to the House for a
resolution reported from the committee before August 1, 1996, which
provides for consideration or disposition of a conference report to
accompany H.R. 3734, The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Act.
This narrow, short-term, waiver will only apply to special rules
providing for the consideration or disposition of a conference report
to accompany the bill H.R. 3734, nothing else.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 492 was reported by the Committee on
Rules by unanimous voice vote. The distinguished Member, Mr. Moakley,
stated in the Committee on Rules that he had no objections to this
rule. The committee recognized the need for expedited procedures to
bring the welfare reform conference report forward as soon as possible.
Mr. Speaker, I include the following extraneous material for the
Record:
[From the U.S. News & World Report, June 3, 1996]
The End of Welfare as We Know It?
(By David Whitman)
Bertha Bridges is still waiting for the end of welfare as
she knows it. Bridges and her three children have been on and
off welfare since the early 1980s, and she has been unable to
hold a job in recent years because school administrators
often call several times a week to ask her to pick up her
disruptive, severely depressed 13-year-old son for fighting
and disobeying teachers.
Seventeen months after U.S. News first interviewed her for
a cover story on welfare reform, matters have only worsened
for the Detroit resident. Several weeks ago her son let three
strangers into her house, and they promptly stole Bridges's
money, jewelry, clothing, dishes and videocassette recorder.
Her son is now back in a psychiatric hospital, his younger
sister is starting to imitate him by refusing to complete
school assignments and Bridges doesn't know where to turn for
help. ``I'm living a nightmare,'' she says.
Last week, President Clinton and Bob Dole jousted to claim
the title of welfare abolitionist--and to deny the other guy
credit for overhauling a welfare system that still does
little to encourage self-reliance. But while the candidates
feud, many of the 4.6 million families on Aid to Families
with Dependent Children are living out nightmares like that
of Bridges.
Clinton claims that waivers granted by his administration
to 38 states to conduct demonstration programs have led to a
quiet revolution. ``The state-based reform we have
encouraged,'' he said in his May 18 radio address, ``has
brought work and responsibility back to the lives of 75
percent of the Americans on welfare.'' Yet according to
federal statistics, only 13 percent of AFDC adults
participated in any education, training or work program in a
typical month in 1994, up a hair from 12 percent in 1992. At
present, less than 1 in 100 AFDC parents toils each month in
workfare programs in exchange for a relief check, a number
that has remained constant since Clinton came to office.
Thanks largely to an improved economy, the number of
Americans on AFDC--12.8 million--was 9 percent lower in
January than three years earlier. Yet the rolls are still at
historically high levels, and 1 in 5 American children still
lives below the poverty line. In 1992, 13.5 percent of the
nation's children received AFDC; in 1995, 13.4 percent of the
country's children did so. One in seven kids in the United
States is now on the dole.
According to the Department of Health and Human Services,
75 percent of AFDC recipients could be affected in an average
month by at least one provision of the 61 waivers granted by
the Clinton administration. That seems to be the basis for
the president's claim that his waivers have reintroduced work
and responsibility to the vast majority of AFDC recipients.
But many of the waivers are for modest reforms. Such as
allowing recipients to keep more earned income before their
welfare checks are reduced.
The most far-reaching waivers permit states to impose time
limits, usually two years. On how long a family can receive
AFDC. According to a soon-to-be-released study by the Center
for Law and Social Policy (CLASP), HHS has authorized 11
states to run statewide programs with full-family cash-aid
cutoffs and two more states' applications are pending.
Awaiting results. It is too early to tell whether the new
time limits will fundamentally alter welfare. Since it takes
years for recipients to use up their cash aid, time limits so
far have affected few families. With the exception of
Chicago, none of the nation's 10 largest cities is in a full-
family time-limit state--and the new CLASP report indicates
that 91 percent of AFDC recipients in Illinois are exempt
from the time limits because they apply there only to
families whose youngest child is 13 or older.
Other states provide narrower exemptions and extensions
than Illinois but still have protective loopholes. One of the
biggest: HHS has insisted that no state can remove a family
from the AFDC rolls if the mother has complied with program
rules and failed to find a job despite her best efforts.
CLASP's Mark Greenberg worries that the new time limits
could throw many needy women and children off welfare. ``If
there are visible catastrophes,'' he says, ``other states may
be reluctant to move forward. But if the catastrophes are
largely invisible, the nation's safeguards for protecting
children will start to unravel.'' In Washington, meanwhile,
the politicians are still fiddling.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I did make the statement that I had no objection to the
rule. That was based on the promise that we were going to have the bill
at 8 p.m. last night. But we do not have the bill, so I do object to
this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr.
Ward].
Mr. WARD. Mr. Speaker, I have here a presentation.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to rule XXX, I object to the
gentleman's use of the exhibit.
The SPEAKER pro tempo. Does the gentleman plan to use this exhibit?
Mr. WARD. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to rule XXX, the question is: Shall
the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Ward] be permitted to use the exhibit?
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. DeLAURO. 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.
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary
inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, under paragraph 803 of
Jefferson's Rules there is a provision, section 10, that states that no
dilatory motion shall be entertained by the Speaker.
This particular section of the rules is very explicit. It goes
through to proclaim that the clause was adopted in 1890 to make
permanent a principle already enunciated in a ruling of the Speaker,
who had declared that the ``object of a parliamentary body is action,
not stoppage of action.''
Mr. Speaker, we have seen several motions to adjourn, one of which
was offered by a colleague who then voted against that motion to
adjourn.
We now have the second case, Mr. Speaker, of a chart being put up
that is blank, that in fact has no substance.
The Speaker, has declined on a number of occasions in the history of
this body or refused to allow procedures to continue that in effect
stop the orderly process of business in this body.
I ask the Speaker, to rule on that section that, in fact, prohibits
dilatory action. I ask the Speaker to rule on the parliamentary stature
of an attempt to basically stop the action of the House through what in
my opinion may be considered as a dilatory action under this particular
rule of the operations of this body.
point of order
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, a vote is in order. This is not really even
a legitimate parliamentary inquiry. I raise a point of order that with
a vote already under way, this parliamentary inquiry is out of order
and would ask that the Chair proceed with the vote previously ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is prepared to address the inquiry
made by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon].
The rule XXX question is not a motion. The rule XXX question is in
the nature of a point of order.
[[Page H9390]]
The gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro] objects to the vote on
the ground that a quorum is not present and makes the point of order
that a quorum is not present.
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 351,
nays 53, answered ``present'' 2, not voting 27, as follows:
[Roll No. 379]
YEAS--351
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Beilenson
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bishop
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brownback
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Burton
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Christensen
Chrysler
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Coleman
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cummings
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLay
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Engel
English
Eshoo
Evans
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Fields (TX)
Filner
Flanagan
Foglietta
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E.B.
Johnston
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McHale
McHugh
McIntosh
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Rahall
Reed
Regula
Riggs
Rivers
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Sabo
Salmon
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Spence
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weldon (PA)
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Young (AK)
Zeliff
NAYS--53
Allard
Baldacci
Ballenger
Bentsen
Bilirakis
Bryant (TN)
Bunning
Buyer
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cubin
Cunningham
Deal
DeLauro
Ensign
Geren
Greene (UT)
Hastert
Hilleary
Hoke
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Lazio
Levin
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
McInnis
McKeon
Packard
Pombo
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rangel
Sanders
Scarborough
Schaefer
Shadegg
Souder
Stockman
Stump
Tauzin
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Towns
Traficant
Vento
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Yates
Zimmer
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--2
Everett
LaHood
NOT VOTING--27
Barr
Barton
Berman
Brown (CA)
Burr
Chapman
Chenoweth
Collins (IL)
Dickey
Flake
Ford
Gibbons
Greenwood
Gunderson
Hayes
Hunter
Longley
Martinez
McDade
Meyers
Moran
Portman
Richardson
Roth
Roukema
Torricelli
Young (FL)
{time} 1309
Ms. DeLAURO changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Ms. FURSE, Ms. RIVERS, Mr. HALL of Ohio, and Mr. SPENCE changed their
vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the gentleman was permitted to use the exhibit in question.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I move that we reconsider the vote.
motion to table offered by mr. largent
Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the motion to reconsider on
the table.
The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Hefley). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Largent] to lay on the
table the motion to reconsider the vote offered by the gentleman from
Washington [Mr. McDermott].
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 239,
noes 172, not voting 22, as follows:
[Roll No. 380]
AYES--239
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brewster
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Christensen
Chrysler
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doggett
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Durbin
Ehlers
Ehrlich
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Greene (UT)
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jacobs
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Moorhead
Morella
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thornton
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Traficant
Upton
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Young (AK)
Zeliff
Zimmer
[[Page H9391]]
NOES--172
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Berman
Bevill
Bishop
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Foglietta
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
LaFalce
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moran
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rangel
Reed
Rivers
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Serrano
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Tejeda
Thompson
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weller
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--22
Bentsen
Chenoweth
Clinger
Collins (IL)
Flake
Ford
Gekas
Greenwood
Gunderson
Hayes
Hilleary
Hoke
Hunter
Klink
Lantos
McDade
Meyers
Portman
Richardson
Seastrand
Taylor (NC)
Young (FL)
{time} 1330
Mr. POMBO changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the motion to table the motion to reconsider was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
personal explanation
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, due to a previous speaking commitment
located off Capitol Hill earlier today, I missed votes on rollcall No.
379, to permit the use of an exhibit, and rollcall No. 380, to table
the motion to reconsider. Had I been present, I would have voted
``yes'' on rollcoll No. 379 and ``yes'' on rollcall No. 380.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming time I yielded to the gentleman
from Kentucky [Mr. Ward], I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank my colleague and my friend, the gentleman from Colorado [Mr.
McInnis], for yielding me the customary half hour.
Mr. Speaker, today, we are considering this rule waiving the two-
thirds requirement for same day consideration because my Republican
colleagues didn't finish the welfare bill until midnight last night.
And last evening, I agreed to this two-thirds rule because I was told
this welfare bill would be available by 8 last night.
But, Mr. Speaker, we did not get the bill until quarter of one in the
morning and that is completely unacceptable. Because, Mr. Speaker, this
issue is very very important and 434 Members of Congress are going to
be asked to vote on this enormous bill and the ink isn't even dry yet.
This bill is no small potatoes. It represents a major change in our
welfare system which will affect millions and millions of Americans,
most of those Americans, Mr. Speaker, are children.
For that reason I think no amount of time is too much. We have a very
serious responsibility to the 9 million children who are supported by
aid to families with dependent children and those children are
depending on us to do it right.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this two-thirds rule. Congress hasn't
had anywhere enough time to consider this bill and it will affect far
too many children to be rushed through the Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
First of all, I am pleased to announce that we now understand that
the President is going to have a press conference here in about 8\1/2\
minutes where he will announce that he is in support of this bill. I am
also pleased to announce they have located Leon Panetta, so we can now
proceed to the substance of this issue that we have sitting right here
in front of us.
The substance is very simple. That is, we have to change welfare in
this country. The welfare bill originally went out of here with
bipartisan support. It is going to go to the President of the United
States with bipartisan support, and it is going to be signed by the
President.
The gentleman from Massachusetts brings up a valid point. The problem
is it is somewhat exaggerated. The gentleman shows a huge bill over
there, as that is the bill that has been given to him in the last
several hours or early this morning to read. That is correct. That
particular bill was given to him. But about 99.9 percent of that bill
is what has been previously contained.
The only changes really were twofold: First, on the family cap and,
second, dealing with Medicaid. So that probably consumes maybe 20, 30
pages out of that entire bill. Yes, we have asked that Members here on
the House floor take time this morning during their workday to read
that 20 to 40 pages or whatever was necessary to be briefed by their
staff.
We are trying to get this bill to the President. For the first time
in a long time, we have general agreement on a major, major issue. We
have got Democrat and Republican support on the House side. We have got
Democrat and Republican support on the Senate side. We have got a
Democratic President that is willing to sign it.
That means that we should expedite the movement of this bill. That
means that this rule should pass. By the way, upstairs this bill was
voted out of committee on a unanimous vote, no dissension upstairs. I
think it is now an appropriate time for us to move on, pass this rule
so that we can get to the meat of the conference committee report and
send this bill to the President for signature.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri [Mr. Volkmer].
(Mr. VOLKMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time
to me.
Mr. Speaker, it is not any great pleasure that I come here today to
be able to address the rule that is now before us. This is a rule that,
when we as Democrats were in the majority, known as basically martial
law, that we only used at the end of the session, usually the last 3
days, in order to facilitate the passage of conference reports in those
last few days. Yet under this leadership and this majority, this year
alone this martial law type of rule has been in effect longer than any
time if you added up all of my previous 19 years here.
So in 1 year, this year, this session, we have used it more than I
did in the previous 19 years. Now, that tells me a little bit about the
running of the House and procedures in the House. This is not
necessary. This rule is not necessary. If we follow the normal rules of
the House, the rule to take up the welfare bill, it would be reported
in a day, be taken up tomorrow in the normal course, be passed. The
welfare bill will be taken up and passed. But for some reason or other,
it has been dictated by on high, and that is what I did say, dictated
by on high, the majority, the Speaker and the floor leader, the
leadership of the Republicans have decided we are going to do it today.
They wanted to do it early this morning. They wanted to do this right
away before any of us even had a chance to look at the bill.
The chairman, the ranking member of the committee has a copy of the
bill there, and there is a copy right over here. I dare say on the
gentleman's side and my side there is not 10 percent of the Members
that have even read that bill. Now, they have a general idea of what is
in it, but that is all.
[[Page H9392]]
A lot of them were willing to vote for it because I talked to Members
on both sides. They are willing to vote for it, either for or against
it this morning without knowing the details. Just the idea of what is
in there.
That gives me a great deal of concern, that we have here
representatives of the people in the U.S. House of Representatives that
are willing to vote on a far-reaching piece of legislation that will
impact on millions of people and yet doing it without knowing exactly
what is in it. That gives me a great deal of concern about the Members
of the U.S. House of Representatives, not as great a deal as the policy
that is being followed of, again, dictating to the Members of the
House. That is basically what we are seeing here, is a dictatorial
policy, autocratic. The leadership knows better than anybody else. We
are going to do it their way or no way, and that is what we are up
against today.
It is that policy that I think has led us to a lack of bipartisanship
in this House. It is the Republican leadership, in my opinion, Speaker
Gingrich, Floor Leader Dick Armey, that are responsible for the highly
partisanship feeling that pervades this House today. It is not only
just on this side. It is on the majority side, too. I hear it
constantly, about the partisanship. Yet everybody stands up and says,
We ought to be bipartisan; we need to be bipartisan.
How can we be bipartisan when the hand is never reached out to the
other side to say, hey, what can we do together on this. That hand is
never reached out. Instead, it is just like this legislation, this
rule, it is dictated from above. It is toned down. Take it or leave it.
That is the way it is. There is no bipartisanship. There is no attempt
to be bipartisan in this House.
I hope that somewhere between now and the end of this session the
majority leadership under the Speaker would see fit to not be so
autocratic, not to be so dictatorial, but to reach out that hand to
Members on this side and say, let us work together the rest of the year
on legislation and let us be bipartisan. There is not much
bipartisanship here today.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
First of all, to the gentleman from Missouri, I wanted to caution him
a little on the utilization of the word ``dictatorship.'' I do not
think that adds to the comity on the floor. I think we should approach
those kind of terms with some trepidation.
Let me address the other point. That is, I do not want the gentleman
from Missouri, because I have great respect for the gentleman, to
continue to use inaccurate facts. The gentleman stated to our body here
that when they were in control we did not see these kind of rules until
the end of the session. I do not know why this keeps coming up, but
time after time after time, when we deal with a rule, Mr. Speaker, we
have to repudiate that. I have got the facts right here. I would be
happy, if the gentleman would like to come over here, we will show him
the statistics.
Let me cover very briefly 1993. It was not near the end of the
session when his side utilized this rule. In fact, it was in February,
in March, in March, in March, in March, in March, in March, and then,
of course, we had some throughout the rest of the session, too. I just
want to make sure that we are accurate on our facts.
The final thing I would caution the gentleman from Missouri, his
statements about this is not bipartisan. In fact, I think this bill
right here, No. 1, both Democrats and Republicans and unaffiliated and
reform party people from across this country acknowledge that welfare
needs to be changed. The system does not work. All of the incentive on
this system is to stay on it, not to get off it. The system helps
people that do not need help and does not help the people that really
do need help.
Since I have been up here, I do not think I know such a major piece
of legislation that has had more joint effort. Certainly the last 3 or
4 hours, I was somewhat amused when the gentleman said this morning,
this morning escaped from us because, frankly, there was a lot of
partisanship delay this morning. But we have gotten past that.
The bill itself, the substance of this bill is a bipartisan product,
a Democrat and Republican product. Certainly. It has been brought up by
the Republican leadership. It is a Republican part of our contract. It
was one of our biggest efforts, but we have had lots of help and we
have appreciated that.
{time} 1345
It is bipartisan, and at 2 o'clock and 15 minutes, the President of
this country is going to hold a press conference where we anticipate
that he is going to agree to sign this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania
[Mr. Fox].
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Colorado [Mr. McInnis] for extending the time because today, Mr.
Speaker, we have an opportunity to pass a stark welfare reform that
requires work and personal responsibility and lifts families from lives
of despair and hopelessness. I think we should especially look to the
fact that for able-bodied individuals this Congress and this Government
will make sure that we have job training and job placement for the
able-bodied, and for those that truly are in need, just seeking it, we
will be there.
The fact is that on child nutrition programs we are talking about
block-granting the States, which is a great benefit because right now
on child nutrition programs we are spending 15 percent to administer
those programs, and the States, only 5 percent for administration. With
the extra 10 percent they will receive from the Federal Government,
they must feed more children more meals by our great standards. The
States will follow the Federal standards.
On child support enforcement, we are going to make sure that all of
those individuals and families that do not now have, for many deadbeat
dads and other parents, the funds they need to make sure that the
children are protected. They will have to adopt in each State programs
like they have in Maine where they had 21,000 people who had not paid
their child support; and when they said they could lose their driver's
license, they in fact, 95 percent within 30 days, paid their child
support payment.
So we see a program that is going to become more modern, more
sensitive, and make sure that we take care of those in need, and we
make sure that the welfare reform that we have crafted here is
bipartisan and worthy of the votes of both sides of the aisle in both
Chambers and, hopefully, as well, with our President.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered. The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________