[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 10 (Wednesday, February 11, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H395-H402]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               DAYCARE FAIRNESS FOR STAY-AT-HOME PARENTS

  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to 
the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 202) expressing the sense of 
the Congress that the Federal Government should acknowledge the 
importance of at-home parents and should not discriminate against 
families who forego a second income in order for a mother or father to 
be at home with their children, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                            H. Con. Res. 202

       Whereas studies have found that quality child care, 
     particularly for infants and young children, requires a 
     sensitive, interactive, loving, and consistent caregiver;
       Whereas most parents meet and exceed the aforementioned 
     criteria, circumstances allowing, often parental care marks 
     the best form of child care;
       Whereas the recent National Institute for Child Health and 
     Development study found that the greatest factor in the 
     development of a young child is ``what is happening at home 
     and in families'';
       Whereas a child's interaction with his or her parents has 
     the most significant impact on their development, any Federal 
     child care policy should enable and encourage parents to 
     spend more time with their children;
       Whereas nearly \1/2\ of preschool children have at-home 
     mothers and only \1/3\ of preschool children have mothers who 
     are employed full time;
       Whereas a large number of low- and middle-income families 
     sacrifice a second full-time income so that the mother may be 
     at home with her child;
       Whereas the average income of 2-parent families with a 
     single income is $20,000 less than the average income of 2-
     parent families with two incomes;
       Whereas only 30 percent of preschool children are in paid 
     child care and the remaining 70 percent of preschool children 
     are in families that do not pay for child care, many of which 
     are low- to middle-income families struggling to provide 
     child care at home;
       Whereas child care proposals should not provide financial 
     assistance solely to the 30 percent of families that pay for 
     child care and should not discriminate against families in 
     which children are cared for by an at-home parent; and
       Whereas any congressional proposal that increases child 
     care funding should provide financial relief to families that 
     sacrifice an entire income in order that a mother or father 
     may be at home for their young child: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
     concurring), That the Congress recognizes that--
       (1) many American families make enormous sacrifices to 
     forgo a second income in order to have a parent care for 
     their child at home;
       (2) there should be no bias against at-home parents;
       (3) parents choose many legitimate forms of child care to 
     meet their individual needs -- an at-home parent, 
     grandparent, aunt, uncle, neighbor, nanny, preschool, or 
     child care center;
       (4) child care needs of at-home parents and working parents 
     should be given careful consideration by the Congress;
       (5) any quality child care proposal should reflect careful 
     consideration of providing financial relief for those 
     families where there is an at-home parent; and
       (6) mothers and fathers who have chosen and continue to 
     choose to be at home should be applauded for their efforts.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) and the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Martinez), each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling).
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support House Concurrent Resolution 202, 
the equitable child care resolution, which I introduced on January 27, 
1998, to ensure that any child care proposal that this Congress may 
consider this year addresses the needs of parents who choose to stay at 
home to care for their child. Almost all of the child care proposals in 
Congress focus solely on expanding commercial child care, despite the 
fact that only 30 percent of preschool children are cared for by paid 
child care providers. And of that 30 percent, an even smaller 
percentage are in commercial child care. We know the majority of 
preschool children are cared for by their mother or father who stay at 
home for that purpose. Yet Federal child care proposals would indicate 
that we should not consider those who stay home as child care 
providers. It is inconceivable to me that the Federal Government would 
tell

[[Page H396]]

families that institutional care is the only way to rear their 
children.
  If we want to help families with their child care needs, we should 
help give parents more time to spend with their children and give them 
back more of their own money so parents can afford the child care that 
best meets their needs.
  This resolution, the Equitable Child Care resolution, sends a clear 
signal to the American people that we, the Congress, recognize there 
are a lot of families out there making huge sacrifices so that one of 
the parents can remain at home to care for their child.

                              {time}  1730

  Federal child care policy should no longer discriminate against at-
home parents. We already have the problem with the marriage penalty in 
our income tax. Federal child care policy should not discriminate. 
Parents make big sacrifices if they stay at home in order to rear their 
children. It is time we recognize those sacrifices.
  The resolution does not deny or discredit families where both parents 
are working hard to support their families, rather the purpose of the 
resolution is to simply recognize that at-home parents are child care 
providers also and should not be forgotten in any kind of child care 
discussion that may go on this year.
  No child care proposal that discriminates against families based on 
their particular choice of child care should be actively considered. 
Families should be treated equally, and I would urge my colleagues to 
make sure all families with child care needs are treated fairly and to 
make sure that at-home parents are not forgotten in any child care 
debate.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. MARTINEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, this is a nice resolution but it is just a 
resolution, not a solution. I rise in protest not to the content of the 
resolution but to the manner it was brought to the floor.
  The bill itself is innocuous. Mr. Speaker, we have a bill before us 
today which has never been marked up in a committee; has never been the 
subject of a hearing. Only 2 weeks ago the resolution was scheduled to 
be marked up by the Committee on Education and the Workforce. In fact, 
just prior to the consideration of the bill, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the chairman of the committee, postponed 
the markup subject to the call of the chair.
  Unfortunately, people on that side of the aisle are now disregarding 
the committee process by rushing this resolution to the floor. I think 
that is very wrong. It puts us in a position of this side and that 
side. Consideration of this bill should be bipartisan in nature. Our 
consideration of this bill under suspension of the rules denies the 
members of the committee and the House an opportunity to amend this 
legislation and include other child care priorities.
  I am confident that all the Members in this body are deeply concerned 
about the quality of child care received by our Nation's children, and 
discussions about this topic are a worthwhile endeavor. However, the 
narrow theme of this legislation is certainly one of the many topics 
which should be discussed when we are talking about child care. This 
resolution's narrow focus highlights none of the vital issues which 
should be a part of a national debate on child care.
  I, along with the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), had 
intended to offer amendments to the bill which would include those 
topics. We were not able to because it was not marked up in the 
committee.
  The families that we consider for child care are not those who choose 
to have one parent at home, as the resolution deals with; these are 
families in which both parents must work in order to afford the 
expenses of daily life. There are families coping with the transition 
from welfare to work who need child care. These are the families truly 
in need of child care assistance; these are the families to which we 
should be directing our attention. Unfortunately, the procedures under 
which this legislation has been brought to the floor denies us an 
opportunity to discuss that.
  Our committee has traditionally operated in a bipartisan fashion, but 
the consistent manner and movement in which the majority is now moving 
legislation to the floor, without proper committee consideration, is 
becoming a frequent practice. I can assure the chairman that I consider 
this a blatant override of the committee's process, and it is 
irresponsible and unjustifiable. I can only assume Election Year 
politics has once again gripped the majority and incited their need to 
create an agenda.
  I urge all Members, whether the majority or minority, to protect the 
process which this House uses for thoughtful consideration of 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), a gentleman I worked very closely 
with last year to make sure that Republicans provided far more money 
than the President asked to make sure that child care was available so 
that the transition from welfare to work would work.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his very generous 
words.
  President Clinton's $22 billion child care initiative creates the 
impression there is a national child care crisis and that the Federal 
Government needs to intervene even further than it has in local child 
care markets. The facts are that 73 percent of preschool children are 
cared for primarily by their parents or relatives and that the Federal 
Government already sponsors a host of child care programs. Five of 
these programs also provide direct payments or subsidies for child care 
totaling about $11 billion this year. At the same time only about 30 
percent of American families with preschool children use paid child 
care while parents work. Consequently, around 70 percent of the 
families, many with low incomes, who are struggling to provide quality 
care for children at home, would receive no support from the Clinton 
child care initiative.
  If there is money to spend, it should go to all families with 
children. We should acknowledge that all mothers work, whether they 
decide to work at home with their children or remain employed outside 
of the home.
  As part of the 1996 welfare reform law, we made two major reforms to 
child care programs: First, block grants totaling several major 
programs so that the States and localities would have flexibility in 
using Federal child care money; second, giving States $20 billion over 
6 years to help pay for child care for poor and low-income families.
  CBO estimates that between 1997 and 2002 spending on child care will 
increase by 38 percent without any additional legislation. In response 
to the changes made by the welfare reform, States are now revamping and 
expanding their child care programs, especially to make them more 
effective in helping mothers who leave welfare. Let us give the States 
a chance to get their child care systems in place.
  The child care credit in the Tax Code is open-ended spending 
available to all Americans who pay Federal taxes. This source of 
Federal support for child care is also expected to grow substantially 
without the need for additional Federal legislation.
  The child care market is working well. Most parents report that they 
are satisfied with their current child care arrangement. The bottom 
line is that if there is money to be spent by helping families raise 
their children, it should be available to all families with children 
and not mandated from Washington.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay), the ranking member of our 
committee.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Once again the Republican majority is running roughshod over House 
procedures. The resolution before us today was never considered by the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce. It was rushed to the floor to 
produce sound bites for the 6 o'clock news.
  This resolution focuses on the child care needs of at-home parents, 
parents that, as the resolution states, have

[[Page H397]]

foregone a second income to stay at home with their children. Certainly 
the issue is worthy of discussion, however it ignores the great needs 
of working families where both parents work, it ignores the need to 
expand the Family and Medical Leave Act, and it ignores parents who are 
transitioning from welfare to work.
  If this resolution were fair, it would reflect the priorities of 
working parents as well as the at-home parents. Unfortunately, Mr. 
Speaker, the majority's abuse of the legislative process bars us from 
having this discussion today.
  Last Congress, Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority voted to cut Head 
Start, to cut child nutrition programs and to eliminate the school 
lunch program. The Republican majority on our committee last Congress 
actually voted to cut child care by $2.5 billion, despite the 
chairman's boasts of the Republican accomplishments in the field of 
child care.
  Mr. Speaker, now the Republican majority offers only empty 
resolutions instead of real solutions to the Nation's child care needs. 
Instead of just passing resolutions, this Congress should be acting to 
ensure that all children, including those children whose parents must 
work, receive affordable, high quality day-care. Instead of passing 
empty resolutions, we should be taking up President Clinton's call for 
investing $21 billion in helping all Americans meet the challenge of 
raising a family.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds, just merely to 
say that the free lunch program continues primarily because of the 
present chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce who 
had to fight constantly to make sure that they did not do away with the 
amount of money that comes from, quote, the paying customer. Otherwise 
the school lunch program ends if providers do not get that money and 
then there are no free lunches. So I want to make sure of that.
  And secondly, again I want to repeat, we Republicans gave $4 billion 
more than the President asked for in the whole child care effort last 
year.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Riggs), a member of the committee.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I want to respectfully and politely take issue with the 
comments of the ranking member of the full committee who just a moment 
ago said Republicans are not concerned about helping working parents.
  To the contrary; that is why we made the House's top priority House 
bill 1, the compensatory time bill, which would allow working parents 
to exchange overtime for time off in lieu of wages or income. It would 
give them more flexibility to meet the demands of their personal family 
situation and would give them the same rights that their public sector 
counterparts have had for years.
  Secondly, the Republican-led Congress have provided tax relief for 
working families through a $500 per child tax credit that we would like 
to expand in this session of Congress, at the same time eliminating the 
marriage penalty in the Tax Code.
  But the real reason for this resolution, Mr. Speaker, being on the 
floor tonight, is the Clinton administration's proposal shows a 
predisposition in favor of institutionalized day-care, a continuation 
of paternalistic government, nanny government, and a discrimination 
against families, working families where one spouse chooses to be at 
home.
  We submit, Mr. Speaker, that as a matter of public policy we want to 
make it more simple, not more difficult, for families who choose to 
have one spouse remaining in the home for the benefit, for the welfare, 
for the nurturing, for the upbringing of their children, we want to 
make it a little easier for families to do that rather than to continue 
this dependency on big government; rather to continue to believe that 
paternalistic nanny government is the solution rather than policies 
that are truly family friendly.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Miller).
  (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, today we are being offered a 
resolution in support of parents who stay at home with their children 
who are young. There is no dispute about the benefits a parent staying 
at home with his or her children can bring to that family, and on that 
basis alone this resolution should, and will, pass with a bipartisan 
majority.
  What is most notable and most troubling, however, are the issues not 
addressed in this resolution. First and foremost is the issue of wages. 
Too many Americans are not earning enough to support their families 
with just one income. Half of America's families with young children 
earn less than $35,000 per year. This includes families in which both 
parents work full time at the minimum wage and earn only $21,400.
  These are the families who have been left behind in the boom economy, 
families whose salaries have been flat-lined and benefits have been cut 
back while the stock market and the CEOs' salaries have skyrocketed. 
These are the families who are forced to send both parents into the 
work force, the many single parents who are forced to work more than 
one job.
  Temporary employment agencies report that most of our employees are 
second breadwinners in the family and that 75 percent of the people 
they employ are working because they have to.

                              {time}  1745

  Families are in a bind over child care because they simply cannot 
earn enough despite working so hard. It is true that where the second 
family income is marginally helpful to the family, then a small boost 
in a tax credit or some other form of assistance may help. But since 
the reality for most families is that a second income is essential, it 
is essential for buying basic needs like food, rent, and health care, 
than a small payment to stay-at-home parents will not resolve the 
problem of most working families, that both parents must work, and that 
child care is either too expensive, too far away, or too low quality, 
there are only two places that workers can go to get assistance and 
basic family needs, either from the wages their employers pay to them 
or from the government.
  But with this resolution, the Republicans once again are opposing the 
requirement that wages be sufficient to provide for the essentials of a 
family.
  This resolution is also further puzzling because in recent actions of 
the Congress to eliminate Federal welfare assistance, Congress voted 
last year to stop paying poor mothers to stay at home with their 
children, instead to go out and get a job, because we believe that the 
mothers of the children of our country would be better off. But now the 
Republican majority wants to use another tax-based subsidy to pay 
mothers or fathers to stay at home, and these are parents that are much 
better off than the working poor or those mothers that are on welfare. 
Somehow there is a consistency gap here.
  Focusing on stay-at-home parents is part of an effort to deceive the 
public into thinking that providing a small taxpayer subsidy to parents 
to stay at home is the equivalent of providing a small taxpayer subsidy 
to working parents that need that money to provide for child care so 
they can stay in the work force.
  In the first solution, the additional income is not enough to keep 
parents from having to work. But in the second instance, the additional 
support is crucial if these parents are going to be able to hold on to 
the jobs that provide the wherewithal for their families.
  So while I welcome this opportunity to work together on child care, I 
wonder why it is that the majority cannot grasp the larger picture of 
the child-care needs of America's families.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), my neighbor.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my neighbor and colleague from 
Pennsylvania for yielding this time to me, and I congratulate him on 
bringing this issue to the floor.
  It is an important issue. And if we accomplish nothing more during 
this debate than to notify the public and to spread the word that we 
are concerned about child care, and particularly about those families 
that sacrifice in order to have one parent remain home with the 
children, then we have succeeded. No matter what the opposition

[[Page H398]]

might say or what final vote may be cast against this resolution, the 
American people will know more following this about our concern about 
child care than would otherwise be the case.
  In every issue that we have ever had concerning taxation or its 
subordinate tax credits, the cry of the American people is, is it fair, 
is there an element of fairness in what you are about to do? Well, when 
we start to consider tax credits for child care, the American people 
will immediately recognize that those individuals who choose to have 
their children at home who will not be benefiting from a child-care tax 
credit program immediately will cry foul, it is not fair play. After 
all, a family who sacrifices should not be put in a worse position than 
a family who chooses a professional, commercial child-care situation to 
care for their children.
  In the name of fairness, in the name of avoiding foul play, we ought 
to support this resolution.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Woolsey).
  (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to see this resolution on the 
floor today because I think that it would have benefited from the 
Committee on Education and Workforce markup that was scheduled and then 
canceled.
  Since other members of the committee and myself had amendments to 
offer to H.Con.Res. 202, I truly had assumed that the committee would 
mark up and have it rescheduled. Silly me. I should have known that the 
majority would not give members of the committee an opportunity to 
improve the resolution so that it would actually acknowledge the 
importance of all families.
  Certainly we should honor families who can choose to have one parent 
at home with their young child. Certainly we should honor families 
where parents get up and go to work every day, but cannot afford child 
care. And we should also honor the people that were covered in my 
amendment, those who give up or would be forced to give up their sole 
source of income because of the lack of child care, keeping them from 
fulfilling their work requirements under the new welfare law.
  Had there been a committee markup, I would have offered an amendment 
expressing the sense of Congress that we must increase from age 6 to 
age 11 when a single parent would be forced to leave a child home if 
they were unable to find an appropriate child care.
  Mr. Speaker, our current law allows this exception only for single 
parents with children under 6 years of age. This means that some 
parents with children as young as age 6 are forced to leave their 
children home alone before and after school, during school vacations, 
and all summer long. Or if the parents choose to stay at home with 
their young children, they lose their temporary assistance for needy 
families.
  As we take time today to applaud the lucky parents who can stay at 
home with their children, I wish we were also protecting working 
parents who risk the loss of their sole source of income because they 
do not have child care.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for 
yielding, and I rise in support of this resolution.
  Let us review some facts about child-care options available to 
today's parents and what they are choosing. Fifty percent of parents 
choose to have one parent stay at home to raise their children, most 
often the mom. Twelve percent of parents tag-team by staggering their 
jobs so one parent is always at home. Thirteen percent of parents have 
grandparents, aunts, or uncles care for their children. Eleven percent 
pay neighbors, nannies, and informal day-care providers. Only 16 
percent of parents choose formal day-care centers.
  Washington must not discriminate against the 50 percent of parents 
who sacrifice a second income so one parent can stay home to raise 
their children. These parents are making financial sacrifices. Two-
parent families, where one parent stays home to care for the children, 
have an income that is $20,000 per year below their two-earner 
counterparts. But those families choose to pay that price because they 
know it is important to their children. Clearly, most parents prefer 
informal day care or staying at home with their kids.
  I am troubled by the President's proposal. It discriminates against 
stay-at-home parents.
  A December 12th, 1997, New York Times article discusses new trends in 
the 1990s that we must take into account. The article states, ``While 
the story of the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s was married women stampeding 
into the labor market, the demographic sea of change is now in the 
process of reversing.'' There are still twice as many two-income 
marriages as one-earner families, but the gap is narrowing and ``it is 
a long-term trend.'' Richard F. Hokenson, chief economist at the 
brokerage firm Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette, believes that growth 
already has been substantial enough to explain some otherwise puzzling 
business developments. After the last fall in mortgage rates, in his 
view, families used the savings to allow one earner, usually the wife, 
to work part-time or leave the job market altogether.
  Let us give parents what they want. Let us reduce the tax burden so 
parents can care for their children as they see fit.
  If the child tax deduction had kept pace with inflation over the past 
30 years, it would be worth more than $7,500 per child today instead of 
$2,400. Let us pass this resolution.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to 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, this resolution draws our attention to an 
important need. Unfortunately, it could divide instead of uniting us. 
Our purpose should be to ensure that all children should have the best 
care, whatever the economic and family situations of these children 
are.
  The administration has shown its commitment to quality care for 
children. In 1996, early versions of welfare reform bills were vetoed 
in part because of inadequate attention to child care. This year, the 
administration has proposed a series of child-care initiatives. It has 
signaled its willingness to work together on a bipartisan basis to 
address the issue of stay-at-home parents. Indeed, a number of us are 
working on ways to provide further assistance to families that would 
make it easier for a parent to stay at home with a young child.
  Perhaps because the Democrats' report on the importance of family 
care for children is clear, the real purpose of this resolution may be 
to protect a weak political flank of the majority.
  One example of this vulnerability occurred when we battled over the 
long-standing program of SSI for families with severely disabled 
children. All of us agreed that we needed to get rid of abuse in the 
program, but there were some in the majority who tried to end a modest 
cash payment to families with a truly handicapped child, even when the 
clear effect of that modest help allowed one parent to stay at home 
with the child.
  Let us not create an artificial wedge that pits working parents 
against those who stay at home with their children. I urge Democrats to 
vote for this resolution, but I also urge Republicans to join us in 
trying to improve child care wherever it is needed.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to enact meaningful, comprehensive child-care legislation that 
addresses the needs of both working and stay-at-home parents and their 
children. This is not an either/or proposition. In this respect, 
America should be one family.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, just again to remind everyone in the Chamber and anyone 
listening that it was the Republicans last year who saw the need to 
increase funding for child care in order to make the transition from 
welfare to work. We provided $4 billion more than the President asked 
for. And you cannot rebut that no matter how many times you go down in 
the well.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Watts).
  Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House 
Concurrent Resolution 202 introduced by my good friend and colleague, 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Chairman

[[Page H399]]

Bill Goodling. And I commend him on this important initiative in behalf 
of America's families.
  For millions of American families where both parents work or single 
parents work, finding quality day care is always a great challenge and 
often a great expense. When parents make the day-care choice, it is not 
done lightly or without serious financial planning. That fact is clear 
or should be clear to every Member of this body.
  However, the fact that we are often not clear on this is when parents 
elected the other option. The other option is taking care of their 
children at home, the option that most American families choose. That 
decision is also not made lightly, nor is it made without serious 
financial planning, because in most cases, this is the most expensive 
option. Giving up a second income is a great financial burden to any 
family.
  So I strongly agree with my colleague and friend from Pennsylvania 
that when we talk about providing financial relief to parents of young 
children, we must not discriminate against those who bear the greatest 
cost.
  And House Concurrent Resolution 202 recognizes the importance of at-
home parents and their financial sacrifices. And I urge my colleagues 
to vote in favor of this resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 6 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from California has 8 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Kennelly).
  Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us 
suggests that those who choose to stay at home with their children, do 
so, and I agree. But we should remember that some parents just cannot 
do that.
  We have single heads of households that have to go to work and have 
to leave their child in day care. In fact, it was not that long ago 
that we all agreed and decided to have our people who were on welfare 
go to work and have to use day care.
  We should also remember that an increasing number of couples both 
work because they want to carry out that American dream of owning their 
own home.

                              {time}  1800

  In short, what we are talking about, what we really need to do, is 
make sure we have child care safer, better, and more affordable. If you 
doubt this, consider the figure that I think is absolutely correct, and 
that is 60 percent of mothers who have children under the age of 6 do 
work outside the home. I am planning on introducing legislation for 
day-care to improve access to quality child care for parents in my home 
State and across the Nation. What we really should be talking about 
here is care for children, good care for children, safe care for 
children, whether they are at home or in day-care.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield one minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania, (Mr. Fox).
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, the intent of the Goodling 
resolution is to ensure that any future child care initiatives 
recognize that all parents have child care needs regardless of whether 
they choose to have an at-home parent, grandparent, neighbor, nanny or 
day-care center, care for their child.
  The intent is to simply bring at-home parents into the child care 
dialog. There is no intent to favor at-home parents over child care 
centers.
  Seventy percent of preschool children are in families that do not pay 
for child care. Many of these children are low- to middle-income 
families that struggle to provide home care for their children. Child 
care initiatives should focus on families that pay for child care as 
well as at-home parents who provide child care.
  Parents should not be penalized for the type of child care they 
choose. Circumstances do not always permit many parents, especially 
low-income parents, to be at home with their children, and Republicans 
have supported and were successful in earmarking $4 billion more over 
the 6 years, $20 billion total, for States to provide for child care. 
This is a great first step.
  The House, of course, will revisit this issue with regard to tax 
credits and, of course, the child development block grant, but the 
Goodling resolution is a great first step, and I hope Members will 
support H. Con. Res. 202.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas, (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, we were so fortunate in our family that my 
wife Libby could stay home with our two young daughters during their 
youth, pursuing her graduate degree and devoting most of her time to 
them. There is no doubt that that is the most important investment that 
our family has ever made. There is absolutely no complete substitute 
for the care of a loving parent to a child.
  But, increasingly in this country, we find single parent families and 
we find two parent families where both parents face economic barriers, 
and the only way they can provide for their children is to both be out 
in the work force. And I know very few families in this country, 
certainly not mine, where a spouse is willing to stay home, and able 
economically to stay home for 18 years.
  So it is that we come to this very strange resolution. You see, the 
President and our Democratic Caucus has had the courage to come forward 
and recognize that not all American families are like mine or any other 
individual family. There are many families with diverse needs, but 
there are few families in this country who do not at some time in their 
life need child care. And there is a vast void in America and shortage 
across America in quality child care to meet the needs and to support 
loving parents.
  Mr. Speaker, this particular resolution has one thing in common for 
all parents, whether they are stay-at-home, single-parent, or two 
working-parent families: This resolution will do absolutely nothing for 
any of those families. It is a true do-nothing resolution. It seeks to 
create a false dichotomy between families in this country and to pit 
one group against another, which is your typical Republican approach. 
It does nothing in terms of assuring families, whatever their status, 
any additional support or assistance, direct or indirect.
  We have nearly a child care crisis in parts of this country. It is a 
crisis for any working family that cannot find quality child care, as 
is true of millions of families across this country. Instead of dealing 
with this crisis in a bipartisan way, this Republican leadership is 
simply coming through with another phony resolution instead of a real 
solution.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Delaware, (Mr. Castle).
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. 
I have some prepared remarks, but I would just like to focus for my 
minute on what we are dealing with here, because I am becoming 
increasingly concerned about what the Federal Government's role in 
child care should be.
  I support the intent of this resolution to make sure stay-at-home 
parents are part of the child care debate, but I am increasingly 
bothered by the fact that the President will come forward and say that 
we need to spend an additional $21.5 billion on child care, and we just 
spent some $22 billion over 5 years in the welfare reform bill. I am 
concerned that we are putting stay-at-home parents with child care 
needs up against those that have out-of-home child care needs, and we 
are going to get into some sort of battle which we are going to 
escalate higher and higher in terms of the cost of what we are doing.
  I hope we as a Congress will sit down and not get divided on a 
political basis in this particular circumstance, but sit down and try 
to determine what the real child care needs of Americans are, both at 
home and those who are not in the home, with respect to helping the 
kids. Keep it within a cost basis that we can manage within our 
balanced budget and go forward from there. I urge all of us to think 
carefully about what we promised to deliver, lest we raise expectations 
unrealistically or throw our balanced budget out the window.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind Members that the welfare bill 
reported out of our committee in 1995, under the leadership of the 
chairman, would have left 800,000 children without child care and cut 
$2.5 billion in funding.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
(Ms. DeLauro).

[[Page H400]]

  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in honor of the mothers and fathers 
who have the financial means or who make the financial sacrifice 
necessary to stay at home with their children. I regret that this 
resolution has chosen to focus on one group of parents, while excluding 
the families who, in order to provide for their children, must have 
both parents in the work force. This resolution sets up a false 
conflict between working parents and stay-at-home parents.
  More than 3 million children whose parents stay at home choose to 
send their young children to preschool. They want their children to 
benefit from the social and intellectual growth that preschool can 
provide. Talk to most any parents, whether working or at home. Their 
concern is about finding and affording safe, high-quality educational 
care for their children.
  We need to support all parents in their child care choices. Helping 
parents who need to find good child care so they can work and helping 
parents who stay at home should be complementary and not competing 
efforts.
  Last October, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) and I 
introduced a resolution honoring the child care givers who provide 
safe, educational care for children of working and stay-at-home 
parents. Its companion was introduced in the Senate by, among others, 
Republican Senators Roberts and Jeffords. That bipartisan resolution, 
which has twice as many House cosponsors as the resolution we are 
discussing today, is designed to recognize and promote high-quality 
care used by stay-at-home and working moms and dads.
  Why has the Republican majority refused to move that resolution 
forward? Why has it chosen to pit one group of parents against another?
  Whether parents stay at home or go to work, quality child care is a 
crucial issue. Parents know their children need safe educational care. 
CEOs know that high educational care must be important for their work 
force and a strong economy. Police officers know that high-quality 
child care provided early in life and before and after school reduces 
juvenile delinquency and chronic crime. Across our Nation, churches and 
synagogues donate classrooms to make quality child care more affordable 
and more accessible to millions of families. Parents, business leaders, 
law enforcement officers and religious communities across this country 
recognize the importance of safe, educational child care. We in this 
Congress must do that as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to stop the 
divisive practice of setting up parents against each other. Let us work 
together. Let us pass legislation this year that helps provide parents 
with the best possible educational care for all of the children in this 
country who need it.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut, Mrs. Johnson.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, this is an important 
resolution because in the process of making public policy in 
Washington, we have focused a lot of time, attention and resources on 
the cost of day-care, making day-care affordable for women coming off 
of welfare, helping families with the cost of day-care through, for 
example, the dependent care tax credit, but we have given entirely too 
little attention to the struggle of young families to try to stay home 
and take care of their own children.
  For those of you interested in this resolution, I hope you will take 
a look at the tax bill I introduced that would provide to stay-at-home 
moms during the years when their kids are 0 to 3, 50 percent of that 
tax credit for staying at home, so they get some economic relief for 
staying at home and providing that very important educational quality 
of care that is necessary to the strong development of children in 
their early years.
  Mr. Speaker, I support this resolution, and thank the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) for bringing it to the floor.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Upton). The gentlewoman from Texas is 
recognized for 2 minutes.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, there is pain in this Chamber 
today. The reason being, there are gentlemen here, and women, who have 
come and advocated on behalf of families and children. We would want to 
be able to stand on the floor of the House and say that any resolution 
that comes before us dealing with the need of millions and millions of 
American families, those that work and those who have made the 
sacrifice to stay home, is the kind of resolution that we would like to 
support.
  But, frankly, I am disturbed, because what this resolution does, 
albeit Members will decide for themselves, is it pitches one group 
against another. It pitches those single parents and working families 
who cannot do anything else but work hard, long hours and get up on the 
buses at 4 a.m., and they need child care.
  Do you know who else it talks about? It talks about those welfare 
mothers that we debated 2 years ago when we said they do not need to 
stay home with their children, they simply need to get up and get out.
  Now all of a sudden, Mr. Speaker, we are concerned about those 
parents who want to stay home with their children, and I am as well. As 
a member of the Congressional Children's Caucus, we join together to 
say we promote children as a national agenda. Therefore, I support the 
idea of making sure we have the right kind of child care.
  This resolution, however, is a divisive one. I would much prefer that 
we came to the floor of the House and had the kind of structure and 
structures to make sure we have quality child care, so that anyone who 
works part-time, stays at home, who may ultimately need child care, 
cannot worry about their child having a loss of life or being injured.
  Yet what we say in this one is we negate what the President has done 
with the billions of dollars for child care for working parents, and we 
put a resolution that falsely represents to those that this is 
something good for them if they stay home.
  I want parents to be able to stay home. I applaud those who can stay 
home and sacrifice. But I find it divisive that we did not give the 
same care and tenderness to those welfare mothers who need to stay home 
as well.
  I hope we can resolve this in a manner that promotes child care and 
families and children and mothers together in unity and not dividable.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close this discussion.
  Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to make sure that it was not the 
author of this resolution that pitted one group against another; it was 
the President of the United States. It was the President of the United 
States who proposed $22 billion additional dollars only for paid day 
care. He said nothing about the parent that stays home.

                              {time}  1815

  My resolution does not tell anybody we must do something about child 
care. Nor does it say we should not do anything about child care. It 
does not say, this is the way you do it. All this resolution says is 
that if someone is going to discuss child care, if there is going to be 
child care legislation, then let us think about all parents, let us 
think about all children. That is all the resolution says. Since the 
President only talked about those families who pay for child care, this 
resolution merely says think about the families also.
  So I would hope everyone would support the resolution because it has 
nothing to do with much of what we have heard; it has only to do with 
the fact that all parents and all children should be considered in any 
debate, any discussion, any legislation that we may enact this year.
  Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, Congress will 
vote on DayCare Fairness for Stay-at-Home Parents, a resolution 
recognizing the importance of stay-at-home parents and the care they 
give their kids.
  I plan to support H. Con. Res. 202, because I believe that the 
Federal Government has for too long discriminated against parents who 
choose to stay at home to raise their children. We as lawmakers need to 
recognize the sacrifices these parents make to be at home with their 
kids, and encourage the kind of care that only they can give.
  But a sense of Congress means nothing unless we back these words up 
with action. We should pass legislation that brings real tax relief to 
parents who stay at home.

[[Page H401]]

  The keystone of our child care effort should be to reverse current 
federal tax policy which effectively discriminates against parents who 
choose to stay at home to raise their children.
  That is why I am introducing legislation today that will universalize 
the Dependent Care Tax Credit (DCTC) to give stay-at-home parents tax 
relief equal to that received by parents who choose to leave their 
children with an outside caregiver. Under my bill, parents who stay at 
home with their pre-school age children will receive credit on $2,400 
of expenses for one child, and $4,800 for two or more children.
  The Dependent Care Tax Credit (DCTC) is currently available only to 
working parents for expenses related to non-parental child care. In 
effect, the DCTC subsidizes parents to leave their children in the care 
of others. In my view, this is a fundamentally misguided and harmful 
policy.
  While I support H. Con. Res. 202, parents who sacrifice a second 
income to stay at home with their kids deserve more than just a pat on 
the back. Let's show stay-at-home parents that we mean what we say. 
Support extending the Dependent Care Tax Credit. American's families 
and our children will be better off for it.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I support H. Con. Res. 202, legislation 
designed to ensure that parents who choose to stay home and provide 
child care are not excluded from any future child care tax credits.
  Our children are our most important resource for the future. Studies 
show that quality child care from a loving and interactive caregiver is 
imperative to the growth and emotional development of infants and young 
children. Parents are the most significant influence on their children. 
They are often the best caregivers, combining love and attention in the 
comfort of the child's home.
  Parents who choose to stay at home and care for their children often 
sacrifice a much needed second full time income. The average income of 
two parent families with a single income is $20,000 less than the 
average income of two parent families with two incomes. At least 70 
percent of preschool children are in families that do not pay for child 
care and many of these families are struggling to make ends meet. These 
families should not be discriminated against for their decision to put 
their children first. Any congressional proposal that increase child 
care funding should also provide financial relief to families that 
choose in order that a parent stay home and care for their young child.
  Therefore I support H. Con. Res. 202, a resolution that will protect 
a families' choice to have one parent stay at home and care for a small 
child. I urge my colleagues to join in support of H. Con. Res. 202.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the resolution 
offered by Chairman Goodling.
  Each and every day, Americans struggle to balance the competing 
demands of work and family. That's why this Congress has a 
responsibility to address the growing child care crisis in America in a 
common-sense, fiscally prudent, ``real-world'' way.
  But as we move to craft legislation that addresses the needs those 
families who must have both parents work due to economic necessity, we 
also must be careful to recognize those families who have decided to 
pursue on another course.
  This resolution makes sense for the American people. It is important 
that we acknowledge the importance of stay-at-home parents and we 
should not discriminate against families who make the economic 
sacrifice to stay at home with their children.
  There can be no doubt. In this day and age such a decision carries 
and economic price. If a mother stays at home there has got to be some 
recognition in the tax code for her contribution.
  For my way of thinking, we need to make it more attractive for a 
family to make the decision for one parent to stay at home. It is a 
struggle, but one that is worthwhile.
  Stay-at-home parents are carrying on the traditions of our mothers 
and grandmothers. Those of us who were fortunate enough to have enjoyed 
the luxury of having our mothers stay-at-home realize what a great gift 
this was. This is our opportunity to show the value we place on the 
loving care that only a parent can provide.
  I chose to stay-at-home full time with my children. We need to help 
make such a choice available. While there are many who are not able to 
afford allowing one parent to stay-at-home, we must help make it more 
equitable for those trying to be full time homemakers.
  We need to remember both the parents who must place their child in 
care outside the home, and the parents who are struggling to afford 
keeping their child in care in the home.
  This is only the beginning of what I believe will be a constructive 
debate on this subject of those who need affordable quality child care.
  Support the Goodling resolution.
  Lets not forget the stay at home moms.
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of 
H. Con. Res. 202, the Equitable Child Care Resolution, which ensures 
that all families with children will be included in future discussions 
on child care proposals.
  It is important to recognize that all parents have child care needs, 
whether they choose to stay home, depend on a family member or utilize 
a day care center for their child. The fact that more than seventy 
percent of children are cared for by an at-home parent or relative, 
while most of the proposals before Congress focus solely on commercial 
child care, reveals the need for such a resolution.
  Furthermore, this resolution states that any financial relief 
considered for parents who work outside the home should also be 
contemplated for families with at-home care givers. There should not be 
a bias against at-home parents, who many times forego a second salary 
to be home with a child.
  This resolution will start the child care debate off on the right 
path by emphasizing the fact that there are many forms of child care. 
In seeking a federal policy, we should not favor one form of child care 
over another.
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, as a working mother, I can identify with the 
millions of parents across this country who find themselves torn 
between the competing responsibilities of work and family. For many 
families, there is no choice harder to make than whether to work, and 
put your child in the care of others, or to forego a second income to 
care for your child yourself.
  The majority of mothers I have talked with would prefer to work part 
time, or not work at all, in order to care for their children. 
Unfortunately, that choice is not financially feasible for most 
Americans. High taxes limit parents' freedom and ability to address the 
needs of their families. Mothers and fathers don't need experts and 
polls to tell them what they already know in their hearts to be true. 
What parents really need is more time to spend with their children, and 
more money to meet the financial needs of their family.
  President Clinton has proposed a child care package that ignores 
these fundamental concerns of parents. His plan creates a bias against 
mothers who have sacrificed an income to raise their children at home. 
Instead, we should make it possible for as many children as possible to 
enjoy the benefit of full-time parental care during their early years. 
Non-parental care is second-best for young children and in some cases 
can even be harmful. This resolution is a first step toward making sure 
Congress passes laws that are good for children, not bureaucrats.
  Families should not be penalized by Washington, DC for the personal 
choices they make, since parents--not bureaucrats--know what is best 
for their children.
  As responsible legislators, we should not take away the choice of 
parents to stay home and take care of their children. We ought to 
enable an average family to survive in ordinary comfort on a single 
income. We can no longer guarantee this choice, however, because of the 
crushing tax burden on families raising children. To the extent that 
our tax policies are squeezing parents and forcing both into the work 
place, we are inflicting real harm on children.
  I encourage this Congress to continue in our efforts to give all 
families the flexibility, choice, and freedom they need to provide for 
their families and raise their children in the manner they see fit, and 
we can only do so by promoting policies of equity that place value and 
trust in the ability of parents to do what is right for their children.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise some concerns I have 
regarding House Concurrent Resolution 202. This year President Clinton 
has brought to public debate the most pressing dilemma for American 
families. That dilemma is finding and affording appropriate child care. 
In the State of New Jersey, an estimated 56 percent of all women with 
children ages 6 and younger are employed and 75% of mothers with 
children between the ages of 6 and 11 work outside the home. 
Unfortunately, the cost of affordable care can be between $4,000 and 
$10,000 annually. We must also take into account the fact that if both 
parents work at full time minimum wage jobs they together will earn 
only $21,400 a year. The need for some type of guidance and relief 
could not be more apparent in New Jersey and nationwide.
  Unfortunately, the resolution we will consider today does not address 
the issue of access to quality child care. Instead it requires that we 
focus our attention on parents that choose to stay at home rather than 
go to work. I am pleased that some parents have such an option and I 
salute their commitment to their families. However, this resolution 
does not address the real problem that most concerns parents which is 
affordable child care. I believe we must first address the need of 
those parents who do not have a choice to stay home and supply them 
with the best options to find appropriate child care. I am also

[[Page H402]]

concerned that this resolution includes a misrepresentation of facts 
that does not accurately reflect the reality of the child care dilemma 
in this country. It also largely ignores those who are committed to 
caring for children who are relatives but not immediate family members. 
These individuals are also important and deserve recognition by 
Congress in child care legislation. For example, a study conducted by 
the Department of Commerce found that grandparents and other non-
parental relatives provide about 35% of the primary care for African 
American and Hispanic families. This resolution only focuses on stay at 
home parents and ignores other individuals that have a need to be 
compensated for their commitment to caring for children.
  I must finally remind my colleagues that the U.S. House of 
Representatives voted to send millions of stay at home parents back 
into the workforce only three years ago by passing welfare reform 
legislation. This resolution sends the message that while we will 
encourage middle and upper class parents to stay at home we do not 
believe that the value of a stay at home parent is as important for low 
income children. This message is a disturbing one and not one that I 
will support.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Upton). The gentleman will state his 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, before we take the vote, if this resolution 
passes, what would be the next step in this legislation?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. If the concurrent resolution is adopted in 
the House, it will go to the Senate.
  Mr. HEFNER. It will go to the Senate?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Yes, it will. This is a concurrent 
resolution.
  The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) that the House suspend the rules and agree 
to the concurrent resolution, House Concurrent Resolution 202, as 
amended.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. GOODLING. 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 409, 
nays 0, answered ``present'' 3, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 13]

                               YEAS--409

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--3

     Frank (MA)
     Martinez
     Payne

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Callahan
     Conyers
     Doolittle
     Eshoo
     Gonzalez
     Harman
     Lantos
     Linder
     Miller (FL)
     Mink
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Obey
     Poshard
     Schiff
     Smith (OR)
     Wise
     Yates

                              {time}  1836

  Mr. BERMAN and Mr. DAVIS of Illinois changed their vote from ``nay'' 
to ``yea.''
  So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the rules were 
suspended and the concurrent resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The title of the concurrent resolution was amended so as to read: 
``Concurrent resolution expressing the sense of the Congress that the 
Federal Government should acknowledge the importance of at-home parents 
and should not discriminate against families who forgo a second income 
in order for a mother or father to be at home with their children.''
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________