[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 62 (Wednesday, May 15, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H2484-H2491]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[[Page H2484]]
   WAIVING A REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE XIII WITH RESPECT TO 
  CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS REPORTED FROM THE COMMITTEE ON 
                                 RULES

  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 420 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 420

       Resolved, That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII 
     for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee 
     on Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is 
     waived with respect to any resolution reported on the 
     legislative day of Wednesday, May 15, 2002, providing for 
     consideration or disposition of a bill to reauthorize and 
     improve the program of block grants to States for temporary 
     assistance for needy families, improve access to quality 
     child care, and for other purposes.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) is 
recognized for 1 hour
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to my colleague, the gentlewoman from New York 
(Ms. Slaughter); pending which I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is 
for the purpose of debate only.
  Early this morning, Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules met and 
passed this resolution waiving clause 6(a) of rule XIII, requiring a 
two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is reported from 
the Committee on Rules against certain resolutions reported from the 
Committee on Rules.
  The resolution applies the waiver to a special rule reported on or 
before the legislative day of Wednesday, May 15, 2002, providing for 
consideration or disposition of the bill H.R. 4737, the Personal 
Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act of 2002.
  Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues are aware, this legislation builds on 
our successes from 1996 to further protect children, strengthen 
families, increase State flexibility, and continue the decline in 
poverty. In fact, yesterday the Committee on Rules received testimony 
on this bill from a number of Members in anticipation of reporting a 
rule to bring this legislation to the floor.
  With final negotiations regarding this important legislation now 
finally complete, adoption of this rule will simply allow us to move 
forward and consider this important welfare reform proposal today 
rather than holding up consideration of this bill until tomorrow or 
even next week.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and allow the 
House to complete its work on the business at hand.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for 
yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule. 
I wish I could tell my colleagues that this measure stemmed from a need 
for flexibility rather than a need to cover up ineptitude, but I would 
not be telling the truth.
  Quite simply, this is the most stunning display of incompetence I 
have witnessed under this leadership. In fumble after fumble, the 
leadership kept attempting to move a flawed bill, failing miserably, 
then going behind closed doors to try it one more time.
  The House of Representatives has ground to a halt, and the call for 
regular order sounds like the punch line to a cynical joke. This is a 
disgrace, and I am at a loss to explain why we are once again preparing 
to circumvent the rules of the body and cram a controversial measure 
down the throats of our colleagues.
  What aversion does this leadership have to the House rules? This is 
an extremely heavy-handed process, even for this leadership. Under the 
rules of the House, a two-thirds vote is required to consider a rule on 
the same day as the Committee on Rules reports it. But the martial law 
procedure before us allows a rule to be considered on the same day as 
it is reported with a majority rather than a two-thirds vote. This rule 
would waive the one day layover requirement, and I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. Speaker, we went into the Committee on Rules yesterday in full 
good faith at 4 p.m., left there around 8 p.m. until midnight to hear 
the final disposition of this bill. Later today, we went in again about 
4 p.m. this afternoon to find the bill on which we had held a hearing 
had been changed. My side was given 30 minutes to look at it. And I 
simply want to say again that that is a dreadful way to run this House, 
and I find it terribly inept.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
  (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule and 
in stronger opposition to this Republican bill.
  First of all, with respect to the rule. John Adams once said that we 
have a Nation of laws, not of men. And when we make laws, a bill comes 
to the floor and it is not perfect from the Republicans, and it is not 
perfect from the Democrats. So there is the opportunity to offer 
amendments.
  Members from different parts of the United States can come to the 
floor and represent their constituents and offer an idea that Indiana 
has done since we gained waivers on welfare reform in 1994. But this 
rule does not allow that. Or a Member from California could come to 
this great hall and offer an amendment on child care, to increase the 
amount of money as we increase the workload on parents. We need to make 
sure we take care of their children for those added hours. This rule 
does not allow that. We cannot offer an amendment to increase child 
care.
  There is a vote for a Democratic substitute, a vote for recommittal, 
and a vote for the Republican bill. No amendments to the Republican 
bill in order. We should defeat this rule. The minority rights are 
being degraded and taken away day by day and week by week.
  Lastly, about the Republican bill itself. I helped get waivers for 
Indiana in 1994, and welfare reform succeeded then because we had State 
flexibility. I voted for the Clinton reform package in 1996. That 
succeeded because it was tough love. We have moved from State 
flexibility to tough love to sanctions and sticks. Now we are short on 
compassion and real long and hard on conservatism.

                              {time}  1900

  Where is the conservative passion in this Republican bill? We do not 
have enough in this bill for child care. I am for better worker 
requirements, longer hours to work, but we must make welfare reform 
work by taking care of our families and our children. We must make sure 
that vocational education can be included in. We must make sure that 
States get credit for getting people into work, not just off of 
welfare. Let us make sure that States get credit for getting people 
into jobs and taking care of our children, not just lopping people off 
the welfare rolls and having no concern for their children's day care 
responsibilities.
  Mr. Speaker, I am adamantly opposed to this rule because it inflicts 
harm on minority rights. I am adamantly opposed to this bill, although 
I supported welfare reform in a bipartisan way 5 years ago on a bill 
that is working, which has resulted in people going to work, which has 
resulted in a State like Indiana getting approximately 30 percent of 
their people off welfare, that has resulted in the lowest poverty rates 
for Hispanic and African American families. Let us continue the success 
of the Clinton bipartisan welfare reform, not sanctions and sticks.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I would like to go over a few details. The gentleman referred to the 
last welfare package as the Clinton welfare reform bill. That welfare 
reform bill was sent to President Clinton three times before he signed 
it. Three times.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

[[Page H2485]]

  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, the bill that I referred to, as the 
gentlewoman from Ohio knows, was a Clinton proposal that came to the 
House for three different votes. It passed with bipartisan support from 
Democrats and Republicans working together, not excluding and 
prohibiting people from working together and offering amendments. It 
was a bipartisan proposal that worked in States like Indiana.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Reclaiming my time, I do not know that it was a 
Clinton proposal that came to the Hill. It was a product of the work of 
this House of Representatives, Republican controlled.
  At the same time, I would like to add that this rule provides the 
Democrats two bites of the apple while only affording the Republicans 
one. We have the base bill which we will be voting on; the Democrats 
have a substitute and a motion to recommit. That proportion is 2 to 1, 
and I do not see anything unfair or partisan about that.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentlewoman from Ohio, we will trade 
our two bites for what the gentlewoman has over on her side.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Wynn).
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this so-called 
martial law rule. By definition, martial law is an improper process.
  I also rise in opposition to the underlying bill. In 1996, I voted 
for welfare reform because it made sense and it put people to work. It 
was a legitimate, bipartisan effort. This bill, unfortunately, moves us 
backwards. First of all, it is an unfunded mandate. My State of 
Maryland will have to pay an additional $144 million because of this 
bill. It requires more people working longer hours and does not provide 
adequate child support, and I think that is a grave mistake.
  Second, on the subject of child care, we have 15 million young people 
now who are eligible for child care under welfare reform who cannot get 
it. This bill makes the situation even worse. They give us a paltry $1 
billion. We need $11 billion to take care of all of the young people 
who need child care as a result of their parents going to work.
  Third, they eliminate vocational education. Look, we do not need a 
generation of career burger boys. The object of welfare reform is to 
give people training so they can get into meaningful, decent, well-
paying jobs. This bill will not allow them to do that. There are three 
good reasons to reject the underlying rule and one major reason to 
reject this rule, because it is martial law.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, there is some good news here. If the House votes against 
this rule, we do not have to be in until the wee hours of the morning. 
We do not have to debate one of the major bills of this session so late 
at night that it is difficult for us all to have the type of debate 
that is worthy of this body. I urge as a matter of fairness that we 
reject this rule. Welfare reform and TANF reauthorization deserves to 
be heard during normal hours of this body. It is wrong for us to have 
to consider it this late at night.
  Second, I do not know how many Members are aware when we started 
today we had H.R. 4700 as the welfare bill. Then it was changed to H.R. 
4735; and now tonight it is changed to H.R. 4737. We have had three 
bills submitted to us for welfare reform. I wonder how many Members of 
this body are aware of what is in the legislation that they are going 
to be asked to vote on tonight.
  Let us vote against this rule so we have a chance to at least read 
this rule before Members vote on it. How many Members are even aware 
what was added to this bill, not by any of the committees, but by the 
Committee on Rules, a provision that will take Medicaid administrative 
funding away from our States. Each one of our States are going to lose 
some revenue. Do Members know how much their State is going to lose? 
Give the Members a chance to know what is in the bill. That is the 
reason we have a one day layover on rules, and that is why this martial 
law should not be adopted.
  Mr. Speaker, how many Members know what has been done to the super 
waiver. I ask Members to read the language that the Committee on Rules 
added to the super waiver. We do not have a super waiver the way 
Members think it is. It has been changed dramatically. I have heard the 
President say we are giving additional flexibility to the States. We 
are not in the Republican bill. We are taking it away, less flexibility 
on how to get the workforce to work, less flexibility on education.
  The President brags about the super waiver. Do Members know what is 
in the bill? That is changed now. If we approve this rule, we are going 
to be taking up another rule that is a closed rule in that it does not 
allow us to offer amendments to the Republican bill. There are issues 
that deserve the debate of this Chamber, whether we should make it 
easier for the States to provide education and job training to people 
on welfare. That deserves the right to be heard as a separate 
amendment.
  I asked the Committee on Rules as the ranking Democratic member of 
the Subcommittee on Human Resources that it be made in order. It is not 
made in order. Child care is an unfunded mandate on the States. We 
should have an opportunity to debate that issue, but the underlying 
rule does not give that to us. Legal immigrants, whether they should be 
continued to be discriminated against; that should have a separate vote 
on this floor.
  What is wrong with the democratic process so the will of this body 
can be had, so the majority can rule? No, the Republicans are afraid to 
let the majority rule. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this 
rule.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I would like to remind the gentleman that his motion and amendment in 
the nature of a substitute was made in order. That is the Democratic 
substitute. I do not know what is wrong with that. The gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cardin) has been made in order by the Committee on Rules, 
as is proper. He will have an up or down vote on that. We were very 
pleased to do that.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman for doing 
what is normal policy, to let the Democrats offer a substitute; but I 
asked for an amendment, as ranking member of the Subcommittee on Human 
Resources. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) asked for an 
amendment concerning a credit to the work requirements. The gentleman 
from California (Mr. Becerra) asked for an amendment dealing with legal 
immigrants. The gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) asked for 
an amendment dealing with child care.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Reclaiming my time, many Republicans asked for an 
amendment, too. This is a process that is fair to both sides.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to 
this rule because it does not provide opportunity for the kind of 
discussion, the kind of debate, or even for the kind of amendments that 
are necessary to deal with something as serious as providing temporary 
assistance to the needy families of this country.
  When we think of those who are needy, who could be more needy than 
individuals who have been arrested, the hundreds, the thousands who 
have been arrested for drug offenses, and yet this legislation gives 
States the option to deny them benefits under TANF. Individuals who may 
have had some difficulty when they were 17, 18, 19 years old, and now 
cannot find a job, cannot get into school, cannot get decent housing, 
and yet they are denied benefits under this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation goes backwards from the original 
legislation rather than moving us forward. I

[[Page H2486]]

hope that we vote to reject the rule and reject the legislation that 
will not provide assistance to some of America's most needy families.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, the issue that we are 
debating is whether to give the majority martial law authority. I think 
my colleagues and the public should know what martial law authority is. 
It is absolute authority to control when to bring something to the 
floor without even allowing the Members of Congress to read what is 
being brought to the floor.
  I was thinking about it, I really could not think of anybody I would 
less like to give martial law authority to than the majority in this 
House, particularly after we have been here all day. We came into 
session at 10 a.m. this morning, stayed in for 45 minutes, and then 
recessed subject to the call of the Chair, and we have been sitting 
around in our offices all day until 7:15 tonight. This group now comes 
and says give us martial law authority, complete authority, to bring a 
bill and control the House.
  Well, if they cannot get a bill together all day and they go through 
three different iterations of the bill they are bringing to the floor, 
why would I want to give them martial law authority to control the 
whole process? It is undemocratic, and I cannot think of anybody I 
would less like to give martial law authority to.
  Second, the whole concept of martial law authority implies some kind 
of emergency. What is the emergency to pass a welfare reform bill? What 
is the emergency that we are dealing with that would bring us into 
session at 7:15 at night and keep us here until 2 in the morning under 
martial law. What is the emergency? I do not see any emergency about 
passing a welfare reform bill. We have a welfare reform bill that is 
the law in this country right now that will continue to be the law 
until we pass another one.
  There is no reason for us to be here at midnight, 1, 2 in the 
morning, debating an important piece of legislation that none of us has 
had an opportunity to even look at and review. And I should give the 
majority martial law authority? Give me a break.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, there is an old story, and a lot of 
Members have heard this before.
  A farmer wanted to borrow an ax from his neighbor one night. He went 
and knocked on the door and said, I need to borrow your ax. The 
neighbor said that he could not lend the farmer his ax tonight. The 
farmer said, Why not? The neighbor said because I am making soup.
  Making soup, what does that have to do with me borrowing your ax or 
not? The neighbor said not a thing, but when you do not want to do 
something, any excuse works.

                              {time}  1915

  That is what we are hearing tonight from my good friends on the other 
side of the aisle. They do not like the bill. They do not like welfare 
reform. They did not like welfare reform in 1996. I did not know this 
was the Bill Clinton welfare bill until a few minutes ago, for example. 
I remember him vetoing it twice. In fact, I only remember him signing 
it when his campaign consultant, Dick Morris, told him he needed to do 
it in order to get reelected. And, as I recall, he did it in the middle 
of the night. Does anybody here remember going to the bill signing 
ceremony?
  I am proud of the gentleman. Next time see if you can get me one of 
those invitations. I did not get one.
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KINGSTON. Let me yield to my friend from Massachusetts. Maybe he 
can help me.
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, are we going to pass this bill in the middle 
of the night to commemorate him signing it in the middle of the night?
  Mr. KINGSTON. That might be good. The gentleman has a good point. We 
are just going to continue that great Democratic tradition.
  Here is the situation with welfare reform. I do want to say, some 
Member has suggested we have sat around here all day long and done 
nothing. We actually as a Capitol, as Democrats and Republicans, as 
Representatives, commemorated police officers from all over America. As 
Members know, there was a huge demonstration of sorts on the Mall today 
in support of our police officers like my friend, Kevin Jones, from 
Brunswick, Georgia, who came up here today because a while back there 
was a car rolling down a hill, he jumped into it, the driver had had a 
medical seizure, and he stopped the car and saved the driver's life. He 
was one of hundreds and thousands of police officers here today. So to 
me it has been a worthwhile day. I know some people probably have been 
sitting around, though.
  I want to talk to you about some of my friends, also, since we have 
gone down the history trail on what was said in 1996. I will not repeat 
the names of some of the Congressmen, but they are on here and these 
are documented statements going back in time, pushing your remote.
  ``I am saddened that today it seems clear that this House will 
abdicate its moral duty and knowingly vote to allow children to go 
hungry in America.'' 1996, a Member of the U.S. Congress.
  Another Member, 1996: ``The only losers we have now are the kids.''
  Here is Patricia Ireland, not exactly known in Republican precinct 
circles as friendly. NOW President Patricia Ireland predicted that the 
1996 law would put ``12.8 million people on welfare at the risk of 
sinking further into poverty and homelessness.''
  And then a former Clinton administration official resigned over 
welfare reform, probably not one of those who was invited to the 
midnight signing ceremony, either. He said, ``More malnutrition and 
more crime, increased infant mortality and increased drug and alcohol 
abuse.''
  And then there is the good old conservative Urban Institute that 
predicted the 1996 law would push 2.6 million people, including 1.1 
million children, into poverty.
  The Children's Defense Fund predicted in 1996 the law would bring a 
12 percent increase in child poverty.
  I only remind people of this not to bring up partisan bitterness from 
the past but to say, when we passed this historic piece of legislation 
in 1996 there were naysayers. I do believe there were a lot of 
Democrats who did come on board finally. But initially it was an uphill 
battle.
  Here is what has actually happened. Since 1996, work among welfare 
recipients has tripled. Employment of single mothers is now more than 
70 percent, an all-time high. Since 1994, welfare caseloads have fallen 
by 60 percent, leaving less than 2 percent of the U.S. population on 
welfare.
  Here is another result: the wage gains for single moms. Again I will 
not go into the chart, but it shows an increase of 73.5 percent. This 
is one on child care funds. Remember, welfare reform was supposed to 
hurt children in particular; but in fact, it increased child care funds 
from $3 billion to $9.4 billion. That is comparing the 1995 to the 2000 
level.
  What are the principles of this bill? Promoting work, improving child 
well-being, promoting healthy marriages and strengthening families, 
fostering hope and opportunity.
  This bill requires welfare recipients to put in a full workweek. 
There is nothing harsh about that. It requires the States to have 70 
percent of welfare families working, again, leaving it up to States to 
have flexibility. All of this stuff sounds very legalistic, but the 
real proof is to people like Bruce Mullins who lost his home and 
entered the welfare-to-work program in September 1998, and now he has 
built a life of joy and promise for himself and his two kids because of 
these training programs. He has had a chance to live with great dignity 
and not be dependent but be independent. And then there is Tonya, a 
single mother. She went on public assistance when her twin girls were 1 
year old, but since completing her program with Cal Work last year, 
Tonya has been able to earn enough money to purchase her own home. 
These are real people with real accomplishments. And then there is 
Judith Brown. She is working her way off welfare reform and is moving 
into a new home in Cincinnati.
  Mr. Speaker, this is what welfare reform is all about, real people.

[[Page H2487]]

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me say to the good 
gentleman from Georgia, I had the opportunity to commemorate and 
celebrate our very fine law enforcement officers today and felt the 
great emotion of this day of tribute. I also spent a lot of time 
working. We were working. But that is not the issue, Mr. Speaker.
  First of all, let me also say to the distinguished gentleman, I noted 
that he emphasized what the welfare reform bill was in his mind, 
promoting work. That is the issue here. I oppose the martial law rule 
because we have no emergency. This bill does not expire until 
September. In fact, his point of promoting work is a very key element 
to the difference, if you will, between those of us who understand that 
there is no shame in being a parent.
  Just a few days ago I represented the United States at the U.N. 
special session on children, the first time this world discussed 
children in 12 years. We come to the floor of the House now and all the 
Republicans want to do is brag about how the welfare reform is about 
promoting work. None of us are afraid of work and those on welfare are 
not afraid of work. But this bill is an unfunded mandate. It is in the 
midnight hour; we do not know what is in it. In addition, let me tell 
you that it is three different bills. I wonder if my good friends on 
the other side of the aisle would allow a waiver for those of us who 
flew in here, got in late and wanted to put in amendments, good 
amendments that would help the young teenagers that are on welfare to 
get parenting skills or financial skills, but those amendments were 
denied. Yet in the dark of night we want to debate something that is 
absolutely not an emergency because we want to go home and brag that we 
are about promoting work.
  What about promoting caring for your children? What about promoting 
child care? We always think that the poor people are deadbeats and do 
not want to work, but we allow those that have good money in the bank 
to stay home and mother their children. This is an outrage. This is a 
bill we do not need to hear about.
  Let me tell them if they do not know, we have a bad economy, we have 
unemployment, there are no jobs and those women who got that work, 
those were entry-level jobs, those jobs do not exist; and my 
constituents are telling me not only are they losing their jobs but 
they are losing health care and child care benefits. If we care about 
Americans who are trying to transition from poverty into work, we would 
not put this bill on the floor tonight. This is an outrage of a bill, 
this is being don in the midnight hour; and it is for people who do not 
care about the poor people in America who every day all they want is an 
opportunity. It is a disgrace. Vote against this martial law rule. Let 
us finally work for the good of all the people of the United States of 
America. I want to let Members know this as I go to my seat, people are 
unemployed.
  This bill will create more unemployment, because it focuses on work 
over valuable job training for welfare recipients so they can qualify 
for jobs they can grow in and keep rather than low-wage temporary jobs.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes 
to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding me this time, and I rise in support of this rule and the 
underlying bill, H.R. 4737. It is good work that this Congress is 
reauthorizing this program. America needs it.
  Today's vote comes at a critical moment in our country. At this time 
6 years ago, interest groups were pouring into Washington saying that 
Congress would impoverish millions of children, that we would cause 
women and children to starve, that millions of families with children 
would lose income and be pushed into poverty, that the streets would be 
filled with the homeless, and that passing welfare reform would lead to 
increased infant mortality, increased drug and alcohol abuse, increased 
family violence and increased child and spousal abuse.
  Today, those claims are somehow forgotten. They are an embarrassment 
to the makers of those claims, knowing that welfare reform has led to 
fewer individuals and families dependent on the government, fewer teen 
pregnancies and a smaller caseload for State welfare workers. This is 
great news for America. H.R. 4737 builds on the success of the past and 
maintains full funding for TANF and investing in new programs that show 
promise for families and children.
  Congress maintains TANF funding, although the need for that funding 
has decreased. Every State has reported fewer cases of individuals and 
families needing assistance. But this should not be viewed as an 
opportunity to cut funds. Instead, Congress is prepared to provide more 
assistance to those who need it the most. Let me make it clear: the 
same level of TANF funding plus fewer caseloads means more resources 
available to those who need it.
  Because we know the job is not finished, H.R. 4737 provides 
additional authority, particularly with respect to promoting stable 
marriages and promoting and strengthening the role of fathers in the 
lives of their children. These programs directly speak to the well-
being of children because of the toll that broken marriages, father 
absence, and out-of-wedlock births has on our culture and society. The 
reason that this vote today is so important is because it confirms that 
the reforms put in place in 1996 were the right thing and they continue 
to be the right thing today.
  After the last few years of implementation, each of us has heard from 
our States and talked to our constituents. We have been able to look at 
the data ourselves. The evidence is in, and welfare reform is a 
tremendous success.
  Here are the facts: 2.3 million fewer children living in poverty; 4.2 
million fewer adults living in poverty; the lowest rate of poverty 
among single mothers in United States history; twice the rate of 
employment for single young mothers; a 60 percent increase in 
employment of mothers who lack a high school diploma; fewer children 
living in single-mother families; more children living in married-
couple families; no increase in out-of-wedlock births. I could go on 
and on and on.
  In my State of Florida, an 84 percent reduction in the welfare 
caseload, the total number of individuals receiving cash assistance, 
has declined by 76 percent, and the total number of cash assistance 
cases has dropped from nearly 220,000 Floridians to less than 70,000 
needing government assistance. Need I say more?
  What is exciting about all these statistics is that they represent 
people who have transitioned from dependence to independence. They 
represent children whose lives have been destined in the past to repeat 
the cycle of poverty but who are now watching their mothers, their 
fathers work and receive a paycheck. They represent young people who 
are changing their behavior, avoiding sexual activity and embracing 
their futures by refusing to be another teenage mother or father. These 
changes are positive, they breed hope, and they must be continued.
  I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Snyder).
  Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, this is an amazingly unfair process we are 
dealing with tonight. It is a continuation of the shameful conduct of 
the majority in this House last week when we were doing the defense 
bill. Last week at an unprecedented time in our Nation's history when 
we are fighting terrorism and we were doing the defense bill, senior 
members of the Committee on Armed Services were denied the opportunity 
to offer amendments merely because they were Democrats. Why? To avoid 
difficult votes in an election year for certain Members. But debate and 
arguing and voting are democracy. It is the essence of our democracy. 
If you do not want to be a part of this great debate here, find another 
job, but do not deny Americans the right to hear their Representative 
offer amendments to bills, even if they are Members of the minority. 
Tonight it is a continuation of the same process. No amendments are to 
be allowed in the consideration of this very important welfare reform 
bill. This is a corruption of our democracy occurring in this great 
House tonight, Mr. Speaker. There is a rot

[[Page H2488]]

going on in the decision-making process of the Republican leaders who 
make these decisions to deny debate.

                              {time}  1930

  The American people will tire of this tyranny, Mr. Speaker, and hold 
the majority accountable for this corruption of our sacred democracy.
  I have many friends on the Republican side of the aisle, and I care 
about them deeply, but tonight I am embarrassed for them that their 
leadership forces them to vote for this shameful, shameful process. 
Vote ``no'' on this rule.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership is turning what 
should be a people's House into a one-party House, into a one-party 
House. I am afraid they do not want a bipartisan bill, they want a 
partisan issue.
  In 1995, there were 13 hours and 20 minutes of debate on welfare 
reform, but here we have just a pittance. My Republican colleagues 
dwell on their version of the past instead of building for the future. 
They speak from a program. They malign President Clinton's efforts. 
There were two vetoes. Why? Over day care and health care. He had 
promised in 1992 to reform welfare. The bills that came out of here did 
not have adequate day care or health care, so he vetoed them. There was 
adequate day care and health care at that time put into the bills, and 
then it passed on a bipartisan basis.
  Look, my colleagues say their bill just fine-tunes, but of the survey 
answers, 41 of 47 States said the Republican bill would require 
``fundamental change.''
  This is about where welfare goes from here. The Republican bill wants 
people to work while they are on welfare; our bill says what the States 
want. We want people off of welfare into long-term, productive work and 
true independence.
  This is a sad day. Debating a major issue in the wee hours, in the 
wee hours. Why do it? I repeat: my Republican colleagues want a 
partisan issue instead of a bipartisan product. My Republican 
colleagues are turning this proud people's House into a one-party 
institution. In the end, they will fail.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the majority. Their 
degradation of democracy has been so consistent and so thorough and so 
successful that they have anesthetized the media.
  We are in the midst of a disgrace. We are debating very important 
public policy. Yes, the welfare reform bill was a significant change 
and it has had some good points. There ought to be a chance to debate 
it fully and to offer amendments.
  I must say I was disappointed to hear the gentlewoman from Ohio say 
dismissively to the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee well, why are 
you complaining? We gave you one substitute. And then when he pointed 
out that there were individual issues of great importance that ought to 
be debated and that the Members ought to take a public position on, she 
said to him, well, this is a fair process; we turn down amendments from 
the Democrats and the Republicans. This is an odd definition of 
fairness in a democracy. We have shut off the debate on both sides. 
That is an odd thing about which to be proud, that you have equally 
suppressed Democrats and Republicans.
  I would also congratulate the majority on the submissiveness they 
have managed to instill in their own Members. In fact, I would like to 
propose that next year we change the Rules of the House. We call being 
in recess ``being in recess subject to the call of the Chair.'' It 
ought to be, obviously, ``being in recess subject to the beck and call 
of the Chair,'' because that is where the majority Members have placed 
themselves.
  We come in ready to debate a very important issue. There is some 
dissension over jurisdiction and turf lines. What happens? This 
majority, which professes to believes in democracy, shuts the doors. 
They take the only important and relevant debate about this and have it 
in closed session for many hours. There will have been more hours of 
private, secret Republican deliberations about this than we will have a 
public debate. And then, hours later, late in the evening, they come in 
and rush it through and we cannot have any amendments. Why? People ask 
what the emergency is. I will tell my colleagues what the emergency is. 
Tomorrow afternoon. We are due to be out by 2 o'clock tomorrow 
afternoon.
  We are being denied the chance to debate what level of day care we 
should have. There is a super waiver in there that will change very 
important public housing policies. There is no chance to debate a vote 
on those. We are talking about whether the work requirement ought to go 
up and what education ought to be. We cannot debate those because we 
have to make planes tomorrow.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a terrible derogation of the democratic process. 
For the gentlewoman to say, well, we are fair, we would not let anybody 
offer an amendment, this turns the world upside down.
  We are here as an elected body of the people to debate and to take 
votes, and my Republican colleagues revel in the success and the ease 
with which you extinguish the democratic impulse.
  I wish the Republican Members were not quite so submissive. I used to 
be in the majority. I voted against the rules. Do my colleagues know 
what? When you vote against the rule because you think it is too 
unfair, you still get to go to sleep at night and you still have 
breakfast in the morning. This is the most shameful refusal to allow 
the democratic process to work that I have encountered and it is, 
unfortunately, becoming a pattern.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Watson).
  Ms. WATSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the 
underlying democratic substitute.
  Assuring the availability of quality, affordable child care is an 
essential component of any welfare reform proposal. The current child 
care system is already severely underfunded. While Los Angeles County 
spends over 27 percent of its budget on child care, 280,000 children 
remain on the wait list for child care services.
  The $1 billion the Republicans have added in the child care funding 
only covers inflation for a program that is currently failing to meet 
the needs of 6 in 7 eligible families. Without restructuring and 
funding child care, the costs for California are projected to increase 
an average of $130 million a year for the next 4 years. Simply put, 
more children will be without proper care while their parents work 
minimum wage jobs. These children's lives are at risk.
  Physical abuse is one of the leading causes of death among small 
children.
  Mr. Speaker, children's lives are valuable. They are our future. We 
must care for our children. Let us defeat the rule, and let us vote for 
a bill that is comprehensive and sincerely helps our families and their 
children.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Becerra), who had a most important amendment that was 
not allowed.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
this time.
  I hope everyone votes against the rule, votes against the previous 
question and, certainly, we should oppose martial law, because it is 
not deserved.
  We are being asked to vote in the blind because we never had a chance 
to read this bill. We are having our voices silenced because we have 
not been offered an opportunity to present amendments in the people's 
House to debate what is very important to the American people, and we 
are being told that we should cast a vote in the dark of night when 
most Americans will be asleep because we have something to hide in this 
Chamber.
  What is it that this majority has to hide with regard to this so-
called welfare reform bill that is before us? Well, first of all, we 
have a bill before us that provides inflexible and unfunded mandates: 
Inflexible because the States

[[Page H2489]]

will not have much choice on how to manage their welfare rolls and to 
use what they have learned through best practices to try to decrease 
their rolls; and unfunded because those requirements do not give the 
States the flexibility to use the monies where they believe best.
  Two quick examples. This welfare reform bill does child care on the 
cheap. We should understand that one out of every seven American 
children who qualifies for day care gets it, the other six do not. It 
tells American children that you must do with what you have, because 
the States will be provided a pittance over the next 5 years to try to 
accommodate that growing number of kids that we know is out there that 
needs child care, especially for welfare mothers who are being told 
that they will have a full workweek of 40 hours. How do we do that? 
Well, in California, with close to 300,000 kids right now not in day 
care but on waiting lists, we would need over $1 billion to implement 
this Republican welfare bill, just on child care.
  Do we know how much money this welfare bill gives to child care over 
the next 5 years? One billion dollars. So every single dime that is 
provided in this bill for child care could be used by one State, the 
State of California. Mr. Speaker, we need a lot more. We cannot do 
child care on the cheap the way this bill does.
  Inflexible and unfunded mandates. Right now we are trying to undo an 
injustice that was done 6 years ago in 1996 to legal immigrants; 
lawful, permanent residents who reside in this country by law, pay 
taxes, do everything they are supposed to do under the law, some 20,000 
to 40,000 right now serving in the Armed Forces as legal immigrants, 
and we are in this bill not going to do a thing to correct an injustice 
done in 1996. At least give the States the flexibility to do what 23 of 
them already do, and that is to provide services under TANF to legal 
immigrants. But the States will not be allowed to do this under the 
majority's bill, because it is inflexible and does not permit that to 
happen. Twenty-three States on their own have already said, let us do 
this.
  Mr. Speaker, in 1996, we told many people in this country who are 
trying to fight for the American dream, who are fighting for this 
country, many of whom have gone to Afghanistan; we are talking about 
people who have won the Medal of Honor in our Armed Services, today who 
are fighting in our uniform, American uniform, that they do not count. 
Secretary Thompson of the Health and Human Services Department under 
the Bush administration has said, we should give States the flexibility 
to offer legal immigrants that support. The Governors of the States are 
saying, we should give that flexibility because 23 of our States 
already do this, and yet this bill does not even give the States that 
flexibility.
  I should say one final thing on that point. This flexibility to allow 
States to provide legal immigrants with services would cost not a 
single cent, not a single cent, yet we cannot get that in.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill should not go through this House. This rule 
should not pass, because it is done in the way that we would not be 
proud as American people.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes 
to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom 
Davis).
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding me this time, and I rise in support of the rule and in support 
of H.R. 4737, the Personal Responsibility, Work, and Family Protection 
Act.
  Mr. Speaker, society benefits from helping the unfortunate lift 
themselves out of poverty and despair, and society benefits most if we 
put those people in a position to stay gainfully employed so that they 
become self-sufficient in as short an amount of time as possible, off 
the welfare rolls, onto payrolls.
  In 1996, this Congress reestablished the notion that welfare was a 
temporary system to help those who had fallen on hard times, not a way 
of life. The warnings of what would happen, and we heard them then from 
the other side, predicted 2.6 million people would be pushed into 
poverty, 12.8 million people falling further into poverty and 
homelessness, that welfare reform represented the most brutal act of 
social policies since Reconstruction, stand in stark contrast to what 
has happened.
  Child poverty has fallen by nearly 3 million people. More parents are 
working, and dependence has dramatically fallen with caseloads 
decreasing by 9 million, from 14 million in 1994 to just 5 million 
today.

                              {time}  1945

  These results are encouraging, but there is still much to be done.
  Today, 58 percent of recipients are neither working nor training, and 
2 million families remain dependent on welfare.
  With H.R. 4735, we reinforce the belief that those receiving benefits 
are expected to work for them. The number of hours one must work or be 
engaged in job-preparation activities rises to 40 hours from 30. 
However, we also recognize the challenges that exist for a person to 
obtain quality work. We give States great flexibility in allowing 
beneficiaries the opportunity to obtain training or education to 
increase their marketability. Sixteen of the required 40 hours per week 
can be used for any purpose that the State deems appropriate, be it 
vocational training, post-secondary education, or caring for a disabled 
child. Furthermore, we stipulate that States have total flexibility in 
designing activities that can be considered work for 3 out of every 24 
months, plus an additional month if the individual is pursuing 
education or training linked to an available job in the local area. I 
believe these are very generous terms and maintain the kind of State 
flexibility that has been the key to success for welfare reform so far.
  In addition, we recognize that increased work requirements will 
require increased child care resources. To that end we authorize an 
additional $2 billion for the Child Care Development block grant.
  Since its enactment in 1996, welfare reform has been a success. We 
have given a boost to many, many families that ultimately want the same 
things we all want: the dignity of a job that allows them to be self-
sufficient, a home of their own, the means to improve the lives of 
their children. The vast majority of those on welfare want to work, and 
any system that creates disincentive to do so is not serving anybody.
  I am grateful to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Tauzin) for their hard work, and I urge adoption of this bill and rule.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  (Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Committee on Education and 
the Workforce that has partial jurisdiction over the legislation, I 
reluctantly rise in opposition to the martial law rule, in opposition 
to the general rule to the base bill, and opposition to the Republican 
bill, and in strong support of the Democratic substitute.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a serious piece of legislation before our body 
this year. This affects many, many of our constituents in each of our 
congressional districts. Many of our Members on this side feel very 
strongly about the substance of this legislation, the impact it is 
going to have on individuals and families and young children throughout 
the country. But since the very beginning of the process of this 
legislation in the House, the minority party has effectively been shut 
out and excluded. And this is true at the subcommittee level, at the 
full committee level, and now at a time when this legislation is 
brought before the American people for debate and consideration on the 
House floor.
  We were not allowed one amendment to be considered tonight for 
discussion and for a vote on the minority side. I guess the way the 
process works we should feel very fortunate and lucky that we are even 
offered a substitute, based on the way things have worked out. But this 
is an important piece of legislation. People do feel strongly about it 
because this is not about the old law now where we are going to hear a 
lot of speeches about the success of moving people off of welfare and 
due to the strong economy and due to the innovation in various States, 
including my own State of Wisconsin, there has been success in the last 
5 years moving people off of welfare reform.

[[Page H2490]]

  This is about the next generation of welfare reform. Dealing with the 
toughest recipients right now who are still on welfare due to some very 
good reasons, whether it has been domestic abuse or sexual assaults 
against them or cognitive disabilities or physical disabilities, these 
are the tough cases; and we need to think creatively in how we are 
dealing with that if we are truly interested in talking about 
individual empowerment and self-sufficiency and lifting people out of 
poverty. But, unfortunately, we will not have that debate today. We 
will not be offered the chance to offer constructive amendments to move 
the process forward on a bipartisan basis. And because of that, I 
encourage my colleagues to support the substitute and vote ``no'' on 
final passage.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentlewoman from New York 
(Ms. Slaughter) has 30 seconds remaining.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just say that on behalf of the Democrat members 
of the Committee on Rules, we would be most grateful when bills of any 
magnitude come before the Committee on Rules and are given a hearing, 
that that bill be ready to go to the floor and that we will not see any 
more of this sitting around all night and waiting all the next day.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of 
the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me time, and 
I congratulate her for being the author of this extraordinarily 
important piece of legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by yielding to my friend, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the distinguished majority leader, 
for the purpose of making an announcement.
  (Mr. ARMEY asked and was given permission to speak out of order.)


                          Legislative Program

  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just say on this evening when the Colorado 
Avalanche is going to win the second round of the hockey play-offs, we 
are all very anxious about the night's events. I should like to 
announce the schedule for the rest of the evening and the rest of the 
week.
  In just a few minutes, Mr. Speaker, we will be voting on this 
expedited rule. After that vote we will take up consideration of the 
welfare reform rule; and when we cast that last vote, it will be the 
last vote of this evening. We will come back in tomorrow morning and 
convene at our regular time, at 10 o'clock; and after our regular 1-
minutes, we will move on to consideration of the welfare reform bill. 
We should complete that bill tomorrow with some recess time out of 
respect for the ceremonies that will be held in the rotunda in which we 
award the Congressional Gold Medal to Former President and Mrs. Ronald 
Reagan. Again, let me say we will have this vote, debate the welfare 
rule, vote the welfare rule, complete our work for the night, commence 
again at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning, continue with the welfare bill, 
and the only possibility being a recess out of consideration for those 
ceremonies in the rotunda, we should complete our work sometime in the 
neighborhood of 4 o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for his announcement. I 
would like to close this debate, Mr. Speaker, by just making a few 
points.
  For starters, if you look at the Great Society welfare program that 
was put into place, we have seen $5.2 trillion expended from the early 
1960s up until the implementation of the 1996 welfare reform bill; $5.2 
trillion. And we saw the poverty rate go from 14.7 percent to 15.2 
percent during that period of time. So we saw those huge expenditures, 
obviously, do nothing but increase the poverty level in this country.
  Now, I have been listening to rhetoric from my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle claiming that we do not care. Well, we care 
enough that we want to do the single most important thing for the 
American people who are struggling. We want to give them an opportunity 
to have a job. The 1996 Welfare Reform Bill is responsible for 7 
million new jobs created for people who otherwise would have been 
relegated to poverty.
  One of the most important parts of that bill has been the Child 
Development and Child Care Act, the provisions that have provided $4.8 
billion. If you look at the $4.8 billion that is being provided for 
child development and child care, this President and this bill calls 
for an additional $2 billion in expenditures in the area of child care. 
And so I believe that this is a measure which does show compassion; and 
it does that most important thing, it is encouraging people to get on 
to the productive side of our economy. They want to be there. They want 
that kind of opportunity, and that is exactly what we are doing. We are 
building on the great success that we saw in the 1996 bill.
  Let me make a couple of comments about this rule and the procedure 
through which we have gone. It is true that we have struggled to ensure 
that we maintain the opportunity for our Governors across the country 
for States to have flexibility when we look at the programs that have 
emerged from five authorizing committees that have worked on this. And 
I believe that it is the right thing for us to do, to provide 
flexibility for the States. But, Mr. Speaker, it is also very important 
for us to maintain our article 1, section 7 prerogative of our control 
of spending; and we, over the last day or so, have been working on 
that. That one provision which consists of 26 lines of a 140-page bill 
has been modified, and that led us to pass a rule calling for same-day 
consideration of the measure.
  Well, based on the announcement that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Armey) has just given, we will not be considering this bill tonight. We 
will be considering it during the day tomorrow. And so we are going to 
have a full opportunity for debate.
  Now, someone said, why are we not making in order a wide range of 
amendments? One of the five authorizing committees involved in this 
process, Mr. Speaker, happens to be the Committee on Ways and Means. 
When a measure emerges from the Committee on Ways and Means, what is 
the procedure that both Democrats and Republicans alike have put in 
place for management of that measure on the House floor? It is a 
modified closed rule. We allow a Democrat substitute, which happens to 
be authored by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), a member of 
the Committee on Ways and Means. And so this is a very fair and 
standard rule in that way.
  So, Mr. Speaker, we are doing one of the most important things that 
we will address in this Congress: taking the American people who are 
struggling and we are going to enhance the opportunity for them to get 
on to the productive side of our economy, and we are going to be 
considering it in a very fair and balanced way, with 2 hours of debate 
tomorrow, another hour of debate that we will have on the rule itself; 
so there will be ample opportunity for Members to raise their concerns 
and talk about this.
  But I have one message: we care, Mr. Speaker. We care because we want 
people to have the dignity of a job, and that is one of the most 
wonderful things that we as a body will be able to do. I urge support 
of this rule.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the resolution.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. 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 219, 
nays 200, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 164]

                               YEAS--219

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker

[[Page H2491]]


     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sullivan
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--200

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Boucher
     Burton
     Gibbons
     Hall (OH)
     Kolbe
     Mascara
     Miller, George
     Murtha
     Napolitano
     Peterson (PA)
     Reyes
     Stark
     Stupak
     Thornberry
     Traficant

                              {time}  2020

  Mr. SKELTON changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan and Mr. YOUNG of Alaska changed their vote from 
``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________