[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.
____________________