[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.
____________________