[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 62 (Wednesday, May 15, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H2491-H2499]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4737, PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY,
WORK, AND FAMILY PROMOTION ACT OF 2002
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 422 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 422
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order without intervention of any point of order
to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4737) 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 bill shall be
considered as read for amendment. The previous question shall
be considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except:
(1) two hours of debate on the bill, with 50 minutes equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Ways and Means, 40 minutes equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and
30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and
Commerce; (2) an amendment in the nature of a substitute
printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying
this resolution, if offered by Representative Cardin of
Maryland or his designee, which shall be in order without
intervention of any point of order, shall be considered as
read, and shall be separately debatable for one hour equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and
(3) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms.
Pryce) is recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for the 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.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 422 is an appropriate, but fair, rule
providing for the consideration of H.R. 4737, the Personal
Responsibility, Work and Family Promotion Act of 2002.
This rule provides for a total of 2 hours of general debate in the
House, with 50 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means, 40
minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and, finally,
30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
After general debate, it will be in order to consider the substitute
amendment, if offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) or
his designee, printed in the Committee on Rules report, which is
debatable for 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent. The rule waives all points of order against
consideration of the bill as well as against the amendment printed in
the report.
Finally, the rule permits the minority to offer a motion to recommit
with or without instructions.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to clarify for my
colleagues that H.R. 4737 represents a new version of our welfare
reform legislation and incorporates one new change. That first bill was
filed on Thursday. The new legislation contains two new provisions. It
continues to provide broad authority to the executive branch to waive
provisions of law in an effort to streamline certain administrative and
programmatic requirements of several programs related to welfare
assistance. However, this bill now contains a new provision, G, on page
118, and H, on page 119, which basically maintains the congressional
responsibility for this country's pursestrings, those set forth
[[Page H2492]]
in article 1, section 7 of our Constitution.
Mr. Speaker, 6 years ago many of us stood in this very Chamber
surrounded by skeptical eyes and wary glares. The debate before us then
was welfare reform. The day we voted on the final conference report,
August 1, 1996, was also payday for many Americans. But unlike many
Americans, and contrary to the central tenet of the American Dream, 14
million people who cashed their check that day did not work for that
money. Such was the nature of our welfare state 6 years ago.
On that day, back in 1996, Congress passed one of the most historic
reform bills of all time, one that truly changed the culture of the
system from one of cynical dependence across generations to one of
personal responsibility. Since 1996, we have witnessed welfare rolls
drop from 14 million persons to 5 million nationwide.
In my own home State of Ohio, we were passing out welfare checks to
the tune of $82 million per month. Post the reforms, the price tag has
been reduced to less than $27 million a month, and it is going to those
who really need the help. In one State alone that is a savings of $50
million a month of hardworking taxpayer money.
And while I speak with great enthusiasm about the extraordinary
achievements of our friends and neighbors, those who have moved onward
to the path of independence, I speak with equal pride of the
compassionate Nation that we call home. We live in a country that is
built on the rewards of hard work and the generosity of a society that
offers assistance to those in need of a helping hand. The underpinnings
of our democracy give us reason and incentive to take responsibility
for our lives, but to ask for assistance if we really need it, and then
be ready to get back on our feet, when we can, with the help of our
neighbors and our community.
We will not turn our backs on those who need help. Instead, we will
provide them with the tools and the resources they need to overcome
adversity, to reverse course, and to rebuild their lives. We have
before us today a tremendous opportunity to build on the success of
welfare reform. H.R. 4737 is a product of strong reflection and
cooperation between the House leadership and the committees of
jurisdiction.
While I have the honor and distinction of introducing this
legislation on behalf of the House, it is the gentleman from California
(Mr. Thomas), the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon),
the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), chairmen of the committees
and subcommittees of jurisdiction, and many others who have worked the
long hours together to craft a bill that truly will protect children,
strengthen families, and increase State flexibility. At the same time,
it will support further declines in poverty through job preparation,
stronger work requirements, and healthy marriages.
First, H.R. 4737 provides $16.6 billion for the Temporary Assistance
for Needy Families, or TANF, block grant, which is the program we
created in 1996. Funding for this block grant goes directly to state-
designated programs to help move more welfare recipients into
productive jobs.
H.R. 4737 will require more welfare families to be engaged in work-
related activities from the current 50 percent to 70 percent by fiscal
year 2007. Increased work requirements are a critical aspect of welfare
reform, because according to the Health and Human Services' ``Third
Annual Report to Congress,'' 58 percent of welfare recipients are not
participating in work activities as designated by Federal law.
Not only will this save money, it will help recipients achieve self-
sufficiency, give them that pride that goes with responsibility, and
then they can pass it on to their children and their grandchildren.
This bill also offers parents the tools and resources they need to
secure a job and provide for their independence. In addition to the
$4.8 billion support for child care through the Child Care and
Development block grant, we have provided an extra $2 billion in child
care money as well as an increase in the amount of money States can
transfer to the block grant from 30 percent to 50 percent.
By providing access to reliable child care, recipients will have
peace of mind knowing their child is safely cared for as they train
for, find, and keep a job.
We all know that training and education are the backbone of advancing
one's professional opportunities. Since the average workweek for most
Americans is 40 hours, H.R. 4737 brings welfare reform up to par by
requiring recipients to be engaged in work activities for 40 hours per
week, up from the current 30. While 24 of the 40 hours must be spent in
actual work, the remaining 16 hours may be defined by States and can
include education and training.
{time} 2030
This bill will also allow for up to 4 months during a 24-month period
to be counted toward State work rate requirements if the individual
engages in education or training programs leading to work.
Additionally, H.R. 4737 directs up to $300 million annually for
programs that encourage healthy, stable marriages, and authorizes $20
million grant funds to support community efforts to promote responsible
fatherhood.
Finally, H.R. 4737 gives unprecedented flexibility to States by
establishing broad new State flex authority which has the support of
the Nation's governors because it will provide the States and their
governors with new and creative tools to meet their own State's needs.
In an attempt to cut down on the arduous, costly and burdensome waiver
application process, States will be able to improve program
effectiveness by submitting a single application to tailor Federal
education, child care, nutrition, labor and housing programs to fit
their State's welfare needs.
Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that the reality of welfare reform success
will silence the grumbles that echoed throughout this Chamber back in
1996. I wish to extend an invitation to my colleagues who may be
hesitant to support this rule for partisan reasons to take a good look
at where we were 6 years ago and where we have come today. Members will
find hundreds of children and families in their districts that are
better off now than they were 6 years ago. They are working, they are
proud, they are teaching their children about the dignity of having a
job and providing for their families. They see a better future for
themselves and their loved ones, and they are encouraged to tell their
stories.
A check in the mail every month will not teach responsibility, will
not build confidence, and will not break the cycle of intergenerational
dependence we witnessed for decades. A check in the mail for a job well
done will open up the doors of opportunity and offer all Americans an
endless supply of pride and self-worth for generations to come.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, 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 thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill is one that impacts millions of
Americans. Many of them are our most vulnerable constituents, but the
process before us today shuts out any meaningful debate, and blocks
consideration of important amendments affecting the elderly, mothers
and children. This is not a welfare reform bill; this is spite.
Moreover, the entire legislative body is put on hold. The Committee
on Rules, as I said earlier, was shut down at midnight and forced to
postpone our vote on the rule until 8 this morning, but then we
repeated the process a little while ago with yet another version of the
bill. As has been pointed out, in 24 hours this bill has become three.
Today's drafting and redrafting makes a mockery of regular order, and
Mr. Speaker, this has got to stop.
It is duplicitous for the Committee on Rules to take testimony from
our colleagues while they know full well that the bill before us will
not be considered in its final form. I oppose this heavy-handed process
and the cynicism it embraces, and urge my colleagues to defeat this
ill-conceived rule.
[[Page H2493]]
In the light of day, we can see that the underlying bill is one that
can desperately use some improvement, and is clearly not ready for
prime time. In fact, the Committee on Rules went out of its way to
ensure that these much-needed changes will not be considered.
Several critical amendments were struck down repeatedly on a party
line vote in the Committee on Rules. In a slap to legal immigrants, the
committee voted down efforts by the gentleman from California (Mr.
Becerra) to protect legal immigrants from being singled out in the
measure.
My colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller),
attempted to provide adequate funding for child care; but he, too, was
rebuffed. And the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton) found
her years of work on the farm bill to protect food stamp recipients
under attack only days after significant improvements to the program
were signed into law by President Bush. The Committee on Rules saw fit
to shut her out as well. Most of my colleagues' efforts suffered a
similar fate.
Moreover, it is becoming clear that the underlying bill fails to
address the most fundamental goal of welfare reform, moving recipients
into real jobs and out of poverty. While caseloads since 1996 have
fallen over 50 percent nationally, the poverty rate has decreased only
13 percent over the same period. This means that even during a time of
historical economic expansion, many who have left welfare remain
dependent on food stamps, WIC and other public assistance. Recipients
are raising children without the education, training or child care that
is necessary to move to real independence.
We have heard from governors, mayors, State legislators, welfare
directors and poverty experts who all say the same thing: The bill is a
step in the wrong direction. We have heard from a bipartisan group of
Senators, led by Senators Breaux and Hatch, that we should expand
access to vocational education, give States credit for placing people
in real jobs, maintain State flexibility, increase child care funding,
and remove restrictions on serving legal immigrants. But,
unfortunately, none of these proposals are contained in this bill. In
fact, the legislation eliminates vocational education from the list of
activities that count as work-related activity.
The message is clear: Education is the key to every American's future
except for poor single mothers with children.
Child care also takes a hit. The new legislation stiffens the work
requirements, but fails to increase the child care money beyond the
additional $400 million a year that the House majority proposes.
Instead, parents get care vouchers, and it is up to them to find the
care. And how many welfare parents have been able to find accessible,
high-quality child care near their homes, or care available on nights
and weekends? How many vulnerable kids in our communities are now in
what is known in the welfare reform business as self-care, which is to
say, they go home after school, lock the door and stay inside. No one
has any idea.
The Congressional Budget Office has informed us that implementing the
new work requirements in the bill would cost States between $8-11
billion over the next 5 years. In addition, the Congressional Budget
Office has indicated that maintaining the current purchasing power of
the child care block grants will cost States another $7 billion over 5
years. This unfunded mandate could force States to cut child care
funding for the working poor in order to finance the additional day
care costs in the workfare programs.
Moreover, new requirements in this bill will focus States on placing
recipients in make-work activities, rather than in real jobs. In fact,
41 of the 47 States surveyed by the National Governors' Association
indicated that the proposal would require them to make fundamental
changes to their welfare programs.
A recent study by the University of Washington found that States'
workfare program had much less impact on the wages of former welfare
recipients than preemployment training did.
This research is one of the reasons that very few States have
implemented large workfare programs over the last 6 years. Some
jurisdictions that did create work experience programs are now
beginning to scale them back. For example, New York City enrolled less
than 10 percent of its adult caseload in work experience programs at
the end of last year compared to 15 percent 2 years ago.
Mr. Speaker, there is a better way, one that maintains State
flexibility, one that focuses on real work, and one that seeks to help
families escape poverty. My colleagues and I support strong work
requirements that seek to move people into real jobs. We believe States
should have the flexibility to determine the best mix of services and
activities to move welfare recipients towards self-sufficiency.
We want to end discrimination against legal immigrants and provide
welfare recipients with access to vocational training so they can find
good jobs. And we support providing the necessary resources, especially
for quality child care, to help families leave welfare for work. I am
afraid this measure fails to do just that.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy).
Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, assistance to those in need is
not only important, it is vital. However, that assistance must be
enabling, not disabling. To me, welfare reform success must be measured
by how many people no longer need temporary assistance, food stamps, or
Medicaid, and how many are moved to a life of self-sufficiency,
dignity, opportunity and hope.
Before moving forward, it is useful to review and look back on the
welfare reform legislation from 1996. It had three goals. First,
reducing welfare dependence and increasing employment. Today 4 million
fewer people are living in poverty than when welfare reform was
enacted.
Second, reducing child poverty. Since welfare reform, welfare
dependence has been cut nearly in half.
Third, reducing illegitimacy and strengthening marriage. For nearly
three decades, out-of-wedlock births as a share of all births rose
steadily at a rate of almost 1 percentage point per year. Welfare
reform has stopped this trend in its tracks.
H.R. 4737 is based on the principles of this past reform. It
increases minimum work requirements, but it builds in cushions for sick
days and holidays, simulating a typical American work schedule.
It makes special accommodation for parents with infants, and for
individuals who need a substance abuse treatment, rehabilitation or
special work-related training.
It provides financial incentives to the States to give as much money
as possible to mothers and children, and it directs up to $300 million
for programs that encourage healthy, stable marriages, including
communications and conflict resolution training.
It provides grants to support community efforts to improve parenting
skills and promote responsible fatherhood.
It encourages State innovation that will help States design
revolutionary programs to help bring welfare reform to the next level.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage all Members to support this rule and to
support H.R. 4737.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Owens).
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Owens).
(Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, this process of the rule shows contempt for
poor people and poor children, just as legislation also shows contempt.
Welfare legislation should not demonize poor children. Yes, first we
must remember that the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Act is a
safety net program for children, for poor children. Helping mothers to
find jobs is only a means to accomplish the end of providing
necessities for children.
These children are a vital part of the fabric of America. History
clearly exposes the fact that poor children of America have grown up to
supply the majority of the foot soldiers who have been maimed and
killed by the wars of
[[Page H2494]]
this Nation. The overwhelming majority of the heroes whose names are
engraved on the Vietnam War Wall Memorial are soldiers who came from
families who would qualify for free school lunches, food stamps and
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.
If we are so unfortunate that we are entrapped into a prolonged war
against terrorism and it becomes necessary to institute a draft again,
the first and greatest number to be drafted will be the children from
the poorest families in America.
Helping children out of poverty and not harassing the so-called
welfare mothers should be the goal and mission of the reauthorization
of TANF legislation. After 5 years of this program, which has been
labeled a great success, why are there more children living in poverty
than before? Have the infant mortality rates decreased? Are children
who have been pushed off Medicaid receiving adequate health care? Are
there more children in juvenile delinquent detention facilities? What
proportion of the prison population were teenagers on welfare 5 years
ago?
To bring legitimacy and humanity into this lawmaking process, these
are a few of the questions that we should answer. We have rushed to
declare a success without applying any basic scientific research
principles. Instead, we are passing a rule tonight which facilitates a
cold-blooded grab for another pound of flesh from the demonized welfare
mothers.
Today it is approximately 2 weeks since we passed the largest safety
net under congressional jurisdiction, the farm subsidy program.
Although it has a few other features, it is primarily to convey $20
billion per year to so-called poor farmers who constitute less than 2
percent of the population.
This is not the only tax dollar give away orgy that we have seen
recently. In the nearly $400 billion defense bill, we threw billions of
dollars at several unnecessary weapon systems, such as the dangerous
Osprey helicopter gadget, a missile defense system that will not
protect us from terrorists, and other high-tech overweight gun monsters
that the Secretary of Defense has declared obsolete.
{time} 2045
There have been other tax giveaway orgies, but the farm bill is the
most relevant comparison because the farm subsidy is a safety net
program. Most people do not understand; it is a safety net program. The
means test for the agriculture safety net benefit is $2.5 million. If
you make more than this, you are not eligible for the safety net
benefits of the farm program. In any one year, you can only receive
$390,000. Do farmers have to work for these taxpayer dollars? Or are
they paid not to work to grow food? Farmers are important, but no more
important than the families that supply the majority of the foot
soldiers who fight and die in the wars of America. Poor children in
America are as important as anybody else. We should not continue to
demonize them. We should understand what Osama bin Laden and a number
of people in the Islamic world understand. They are precious, they take
them and they train them to hate; and they have become a resource to be
used against America. Our children deserve the same kind of attention,
not to be demonized but to be nurtured.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes
to the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).
Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I support the rule and the underlying bill.
It seems to me that we often devote most of our time in this body
attempting to fix that which is broken and very little time preventing
damage before it occurs. The greatest cause of poverty in this Nation
is fatherlessness. Children without fathers are five times more likely
to live in poverty. They are five times more likely to depend on
welfare. The greatest cause of dysfunction among young people is
fatherlessness. Fatherless children are three times more likely to have
behavioral problems, two times more likely to commit a crime, and much
more likely to be involved in teen pregnancy, drugs, suicide and
dropout from school. We have 18 million fatherless children in our
country today.
The President's welfare reform plan addresses these problems. It
eliminates the higher work requirements for two-parent families. It
removes a disincentive to marriage. It provides $300 million to allow
States to provide marital preparation programs, to provide counseling
to strengthen marriages, and to promote fatherhood programs which
encourage fathers to take responsibility. This bill strengthens
families and attempts to eliminate the root cause of poverty. It is
proactive rather than reactive.
I urge support for this bill.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Indiana (Ms. Carson).
Ms. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask Members to vote
against this rule. The American taxpayers who pay our salaries deserve
a full and open debate on the most significant piece of legislation
concerning the lives of families and children across this country. If
this were an open rule, of course, I would try to offer an amendment
that does in fact enhance the position of fatherhood and fatherhood
programs in a State. But, Mr. Speaker, States around the country are
financially strapped. Indiana alone would be affected $211 million with
the passage of this incredible legislation. Because it is as
significant as it is, it deserves full and open debate. We have pushed
unfunded mandates for education of our children from the Federal
Government to the States; and the last time I looked at this bill, by
whichever number it may be at this particular point, it would even deny
persons an opportunity to get vocational education which would push
them into the economic mainstream, into the job opportunities that
would be afforded them from vocational education.
I think that it is grossly unfair to punish American families and to
punish children by this bill. That will be why, Mr. Speaker, I would
encourage the Members to vote against the rule and recall the words of
Abraham Lincoln, I believe, that a House divided cannot stand.
Certainly this particular legislation is very divisive, and we should
not support the rule.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Hawaii (Mrs. Mink).
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor tonight to express my great dismay,
consternation and disillusionment with the decision of the Committee on
Rules to deny every single amendment that had been proffered for debate
in this House on this very, very important bill. I cannot fathom the
reason why there would be a total rejection of all of these important
measures. They could select out some. The four that I proposed could
easily have been eliminated. I would have been angry, but at least the
process would have been preserved. This House has a world reputation to
maintain as a great deliberative body. What are we afraid of in terms
of a full debate? There is no way in which you can take a general
debate and a debate on a substitute, to have that constitute an
amendment on specific provisions of the bill.
An amendment would allow us to single out an issue, to target it, to
talk specifically about one particular provision, such as education,
why that is so important. It seems to me that the leadership of this
House, the Committee on Rules, has completely abdicated its
responsibility to preserve the very heart of this Chamber and, that is,
to allow the diverse opinions, the discussion and debate to formulate
the final outcome of this bill. As it turns out, none of the amendments
are going to be considered. We will have just the debate on the main
bill and a debate on the substitute. All the other things of importance
will be relegated to the trash heap. I think that that is really a
disgrace.
I hope that the Members of this House will understand that this is a
degrading operation on the integrity of this House, and I hope they
will vote down this rule.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).
(Mrs. CLAYTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, we need to block this block grant
proposal. This welfare reauthorization bill
[[Page H2495]]
that the House leadership has finally brought to the floor still
contains a proposal to allow five States to elect a food stamp block
grant in lieu of the regular program. And in addition, it allows the
food stamp program the opportunity or the provision of a super waiver.
This is a bad idea on procedure; it is flawed policy and should be
defeated.
I offered an amendment to remove from the bill these two provisions,
the five-state block grant provision and the super waiver provision.
The Committee on Rules denied that amendment. This rule, therefore,
needs to be defeated on process.
This block grant proposal ought to be blocked for a number of valid
policy reasons: first of all, this proposal undermines the ability of
the food stamp program to respond to human needs during economic
downturns. The States will face pressure to transfer food assistance
spending to employment and training.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that between 2002 and 2007,
expenditures for food stamp benefits, administrative costs and
employment and training programs will increase by 13 percent, from $21
billion to $24 billion. Indeed, if this should occur, where would this
money come from? Fixed block granting of food stamps would not allow
for those expenditures.
Finally, the restoration of legal immigrants, unlikely under food
stamp block grants. Just Monday, I stood beside the President when he
bragged about the fact that he was restoring legal immigrants to have
the provision of food stamps. Well, they will not have it if five
States can block grant, because the immigrant cost is not in the base
of it; and that cost, therefore, would be impossible for States to
assume, and that provision would not happen.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to act responsibly by indeed
responding to the increasing need of food assistance during economic
times and not to block-grant food stamps. The States cannot afford it.
Therefore, I implore my colleagues not only to defeat this rule but
also to defeat this bad proposal.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Solis).
(Ms. SOLIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, I also rise today in strong opposition to
this unfair rule. I am strongly disappointed that my friends on the
other side of the aisle decided that a debate about the future of
working families, working poor families in this country does not
deserve more than a few hours of discussion. And I am disappointed that
they decided that amendments on important issues like child care and
restoration of benefits for legal immigrants, legal immigrants, does
not deserve to be heard on the floor of this House. These are vital
issues to my community.
In Los Angeles County alone, there is a child care crisis. Only 16
percent of the children in my community there receive child care. And
for a family earning the minimum wage in my community, it takes about
61 percent of their income just to place one infant in child care. So I
attempted to offer an amendment to allow mothers who are receiving
welfare benefits and have infant children or a child or a disabled
child to stay at home and care for that child because it is so costly
to place these children in child care. It is hard to get, and it costs
a lot of money. This request was denied.
Mr. Speaker, I also represent a community with a large number of
immigrants, many from Mexico, Central America, and Asia. I attempted to
offer an amendment with the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra),
the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu), and the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Crowley) to restore welfare benefits to legal immigrants. But this
request was also denied. I cannot support a rule which does not even
allow me to debate the issues that matter most to men and women from my
district who are struggling to get out of poverty. They want to have
dignity. They want to have a job. But they also need assistance from
this government.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this unfair rule and oppose the
previous question so we can make our voices heard and allow for a free
and fair debate.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Mrs. Meek).
(Mrs. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, this welfare reform rule should be
defeated in that there is really no reformation of welfare here. There
are just some glib statements of people who would not know a poor
person if they saw them walk by them tonight. They need to get into the
shoes of poor people. Then they can realize that this bill does nothing
to increase self-sufficiency of poor people.
We use a lot of buzz words here in the Congress. We keep talking
about self-sufficiency. You do not find it here. None of your welfare
reform bills or your welfare programs have brought self-sufficiency,
because the people you say will be out of poverty are still in poverty.
You are not meeting the child care needs. The children are getting
poorer and poorer. Poverty resides just away from here, not two blocks
from here. Yet you cannot realize that this bill does nothing to
address self-sufficiency.
In 1999 in the middle of the economic boom, ex-welfare recipients who
worked earned an average of nearly $7,200 a year, approximately $6,000
below the poverty line for a family of three. Think of that. Nearly one
out of five children in the United States are still living in poverty.
And we are here in this great land, we are able to give away money to
everyone; but we cannot look down to the least of those, our small
children who need help in this country. Poverty is not so that we
cannot overcome it. Other governments have tried it. Why is it that our
government is so bitterly opposed to helping poor people? You are
helping the rich. Why not put the same measurement on the poor? You are
not helping them.
Are we providing recipients with the education and training? I see
these women who come in and out like they are on an escalator with all
of these training programs. There are people who are getting rich off
your poverty program under the guise of bringing about welfare reform.
That is why we sit here and make these obsolete kinds of measures, not
letting people talk about them. You have got to have some real jobs,
not dead-end jobs, so that these people can become self-sufficient and
educate and train them. It can be done if we really want to do it.
Defeat this rule.
{time} 2100
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend His
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
this time, and I rise in opposition to this rule.
A fair rule should give us a chance to build a consensus; this rule
does not. Women on public assistance with children under 6 years of age
have three full-time jobs. They are expected to work, as they should,
in exchange for their welfare benefits; they are expected to get an
education so that they can leave welfare and get a better job, and they
are expected to be full-time moms 7 days a week, 24 hours a day. Only a
magician can pull off that triple-threat problem, unless she has
adequate child care.
There are Members in this Chamber who believe strongly that the work
requirement should be increased to 40 hours, and there are those of us
who believe that that increase is punitive and counterproductive. There
is an opportunity and a possibility for compromise, and that compromise
would be to guarantee, not to promise, but to guarantee first-rate
child care when needed for these moms that we are telling to get out
and get an education and go to work. Amendments that would have given
us a chance to strike that compromise have been stricken from this
rule.
Mr. Speaker, this rule fails the test of serious compromise and it
should fail the vote of this House. I would urge my colleagues to
defeat the rule.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Brown).
[[Page H2496]]
(Ms. BROWN of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, there is two words to describe
what is wrong with this welfare bill: Rile-ya Wilson, this beautiful
baby. Right now, this 5-year-old child from my State is missing
somewhere in this country, and this Congress wants to give full
responsibility to under-funded State agencies without any Federal
oversight.
It is truly an outrage that we are tonight debating how much money to
dedicate to the weakest, when the President and the Republicans want to
make permanent extending tax credits to the richest in our country to
the tune of over $500 billion. And worse, the children of Florida have
double jeopardy because we have a governor, Jeb Bush, that gives all of
the money to the wealthy businesses instead of making sure that the
State can account for all of its children.
Our priorities are all wrong. It is time that we start thinking of
the children first. What happened to ``Leave No Child Behind?'' Well,
Mr. Speaker, the Republicans are really good with coming up with catchy
statements, but I have one for you: Where is the beef? I say, where is
the beef?
The Republicans do nothing to improve the state of children in this
country. The Republicans want welfare recipients to work 40 hours a
week, but where is the money for child care? This bill does nothing to
allow parents to receive an education and training to get good jobs to
get off the welfare rolls.
The proof is in the pudding. Do not just talk the talk, walk the
walk. Instead of sending money to the States to try to get people to
get married, we need to focus all of our energy on what is really
important: making sure that the States are equipped to take care of all
of the children. We cannot afford another tragedy like this precious,
precious baby.
Mr. Speaker, to whom God has given much, much is expected, and they
are expecting much from this Congress.
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, I rise in opposition to the rule. It is an
unfair rule, and it does not give the minority party a chance to engage
in a meaningful, substantive debate about the base bill by offering
amendments.
Now, during the course of this debate as it resumes tomorrow, we are
going to hear a lot of fluff and a lot of bluster about empowering
individuals with work and jobs, but if we are truly interested in
lifting people out of poverty, we must be interested in giving them an
opportunity for work. Yet, an amendment that myself and the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Levin) wanted to offer which would have established
a work credit, an incentive for States to move people off of welfare
into meaningful, respectable paying jobs, is denied an opportunity to
be fully heard.
We are also going to be hearing a lot of talk about the importance of
two-parent families and the role of fathers with welfare reform. Yet an
amendment I wanted to offer with the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Roemer) that would create an incentive for States to make sure that
noncustodial parents get work and also pay child support payments,
which is important for the upbringing of these kids, is denied a
meaningful debate during consideration of this legislation.
Also, another important area that needs to be addressed with the base
bill, and that is victims of domestic abuse and sexual assault are in a
unique situation. They sometimes have deep psychological scars and it
is not easy for them to turn their life around. Yet, consideration of
those issues, which are very important for a lot of people currently on
welfare rolls throughout the country, is not given meaningful attention
under the base bill.
These issues, however, have been addressed in the Democratic
substitute, one that we will be hearing more about and the differences,
the basic differences between the two bills, and that is why I would
encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule so that we can open
up the base bill for more discussion. But if that fails, support the
Democratic substitute and vote ``no'' on the Republican underlying
bill.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time, and I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) for following
the time-honored tradition of allowing the Democrats to have a
substitute under the rule, but let me urge my colleagues to vote
against the rule, because in a bill of this importance amendments
should have been made in order and no amendments were made in order.
Mr. Speaker, I listened to many people who were saying they are going
to support the underlying bill talk with pride of what we have
accomplished during the past 5 years, but then they are supporting
legislation that moves backwards and takes away a lot of tools that
States currently have that have been responsible for the success during
the past 5 years. Our States have said that if these new requirements
become law, it is going to require them to have workfare programs
rather than getting people real jobs.
But let me talk about the amendment that I took to the Committee on
Rules that deals with education, because I think education is key. The
current law allows vocational education training to count towards a
State's work participation rate for up to 12 months. That is the
current law. The Republican bill takes that out of the law. It says
basically that education is important for everyone in this country,
except the most vulnerable, the people that are on welfare. Is that the
message we really want to give to the American people?
The amendment that I submitted to the Committee on Rules would have
continued education as a core requirement under the work participation.
It would have expanded it to 2 years. It would have included English as
a second language and GED, and expanded the opportunities of using
education so people cannot only be lifted out of cash assistance, but
can have a good job and lifted out of poverty. That is the type of
debate that we should be having tomorrow. But the rule that we have
before us denies us that opportunity to debate that issue.
Mr. Speaker, this is a very important issue, TANF reauthorization and
welfare. It deserves debate in this Chamber so that we can talk about
education and we can talk about the other issues as to whether there is
adequate resources for our States but, unfortunately, the rule before
us will not let us do it. I urge my colleagues to reject the rule.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I understand my colleague has no further
requests for time, nor do I, so I yield myself the remaining time.
Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to oppose the previous question. If the
previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule
that will allow us to consider two important amendments denied in the
Committee on Rules.
The first amendment, offered by the gentleman from California (Mr.
Becerra), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis), the gentleman
from Oregon (Mr. Wu) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley),
would remove the ban on welfare benefits to legal immigrants. Legal
immigrants contribute greatly to our society and they paid an estimated
$50 billion in surplus taxes just last year, and 20,000 legal
immigrants serve in our Nation's Armed Forces but they are banned from
receiving funds in this bill. We would have an opportunity to vote to
change this, and the amendment would give us that chance.
The second amendment offered by the gentlewoman from North Carolina
(Mrs. Clayton) would strike the food stamp program from the super
waiver in the five-state block grant. Food stamps are often the only
source of Federal assistance for many low-income working Americans.
This program should not be tampered with by the House.
Please vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can have an
opportunity to debate and vote on these two very important issues.
[[Page H2497]]
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the
previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Is there objection to the
request of the gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
General Leave
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks and include extraneous material on House resolution 422.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time. In
closing, I ask my colleagues to look back at the welfare reforms of
1996 and to remind them that we have come a long, long way.
Today we will find children and families in each of our districts
better off than they were 6 years ago. We have reduced the welfare
rolls and helped those who were once down and out to lift themselves
up. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4737 builds on these efforts to further protect
the children, to further strengthen families, to further increase State
flexibility, and to further continue the decline in poverty.
It is often said that the best social program is a job. This
legislation provides the needed tools for people to move from welfare
to work and opens up for them the door of opportunity, pride, and a
better future. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the
underlying legislation.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and bill
before us today.
I want to make it clear that I strongly advocate giving the states
the flexibility that they need to effectively serve those citizens who
strive to break the cycle of welfare dependence. That is why I am
troubled by the provisions in the bill before us today that severely
restrict the flexibility of states such as Texas to continue the
activities that have been successful in their welfare to work programs
and place a tremendous unfunded mandate on states.
For my own state of Texas, this bill would create an unfunded mandate
of $166 million a year, in addition to the $78 million shortfall they
will face under current law by 2007. Under the bill, Texas would be
forced to implement policies which Texas has already rejected as
unworkable and change parts of its welfare reform effort that have been
a success in moving welfare recipients into real jobs because of the
mandates in the bill. The welfare reform effort in Texas has been a
success. It would be the height of arrogance for me to stand here in
Washington and vote to require Texas to implement policies on welfare
reform that the Texas legislature has already considered and rejected.
The so-called ``super-waivers'' advocated in this legislation has the
potential to undermine current food stamp policy that has a sound track
record of providing nutrition assistance to all eligible citizens if
they face economic hardships. The question is not whether states should
or should not receive the flexibility under waiver authority to tailor
the food stamp program rules. States already have that flexibility. The
question is whether states should be allowed even greater flexibility
to change the very nature of the food stamp program.
If there are innovative reforms that states would like to implement
that are prohibited under current law, we should examine how to address
those specific problems. That is what the Committee process is intended
to do. Let state administrators testify before the Agriculture
Committee about the changes they believe would allow them to run the
program better, let the Committee examine the consequences of those
changes, and then come up with legislation to address those concerns.
The delay in bringing this bill to the floor today highlights the
problems of ignoring the committee process and writing bills in the
leadership offices. Welfare reform is too important to consider under a
process that has more to do with scoring political points than building
on what has been successful.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4737 is a top priority for President
Bush and one of the most important bills we'll consider this year.
The 1996 welfare reform law--one the most successful social policy
initiatives in recent memory--is set to expire later this year. In
February, President Bush unveiled his principles for reauthorizing this
important law; H.R. 4737, the Personal Responsibility, Work and Family
Promotion Act, is based on those principles.
Its goal is simple: to put even more Americans on the path to self-
sufficiency and independence. While the '96 law has been an unqualified
success, there is more work to be done. A majority of TANF recipients--
58 percent--still aren't working for their benefits.
That's why H.R. 4737 strengthens current work requirements. It asks
welfare recipients to engage in work-related activities for 40 hours a
week--16 of which could be in education, job training, or other
constructive activities as defined by states.
The measure also gradually increases the work participation rate
required of states--by 2007, 70 percent of a state's TANF recipients
must be in work-related activities, up from 50 percent in current law.
Moreover, the bill makes significant improvements to the Child Care
and Development Block Grant. It adds $1 billion in discretionary
funding to the program over five years and requires states to devote
more money to improving child care quality. The bill also incorporates
key elements of President Bush's Good Start, Grow Smart early childhood
education plan, encouraging states to make sure children are
developmentally prepared to enter school.
H.R. 4737 also significantly enhances flexibility for states and
localities to integrate a variety of federal programs, including TANF,
food stamps, housing assistance, the child care block grant, and
workforce investment programs.
This innovative plan will give states and localities the opportunity
to respond creatively to recipients' needs and improve the efficiency
of federal welfare and workforce programs. As a recent Wall Street
Journal editorial noted, the State Flex proposal ``has the potential to
spur the next wave of reform.''
With this bill, we have the chance to build on the success of the
last five years. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this
important issue as we move forward.
This proposal has been approved by three different House Committees;
many Members have had the opportunity to consider and amend this bill.
The rule today before us is a fair rule, and I urge members to support
it.
The amendment previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:
Strike all after the resolved clause and insert the
following:
That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the
Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
____) to reauthorize and improve the program of block grants
to State for temporary assistance for needy families, improve
access to quality child care, and for other purposes. The
first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points
of order against consideration of the bill are waived.
General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not
exceed two hours, with 50 minutes equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Ways and Means, 40 minutes equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Education and the Workforce, and 30 minutes
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
After general debate the bill shall be considered for
amendment under the five-minute rule. The bill shall be
considered as read. No amendment to the bill shall be in
order except the amendment printed in the report of the
Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution or the
amendments specified in section 2. Each amendment specified
in section 2 may be offered only in the order specified. The
amendment printed in the report of the Rules Committee may be
considered only after the amendments specified in section 2.
Each amendment may be offered only by a Member designated in
the report or in section 2, as the case may be, shall be
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified
in the report or in section 2, as the case may be, equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in
the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such
amendment are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
Sec. 2. The amendments referred to the first section of
this resolution are as follows:
(1) Amendment to be offered by Representative Becerra of
California or Representative Solis of California or
Representative Wu of Oregon or Representative Crowley of New
York or a designee, which shall be debatable for 30 minutes.
At the end of the bill, add the following:
TITLE ____--TREATMENT OF ALIENS
SEC. ____. TREATMENT OF ALIENS UNDER THE TANF PROGRAM.
(a) Exception to 5-Year Ban for Qualified Aliens.--Section
403(c)(2) of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
[[Page H2498]]
Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1613(c)(2)) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(L) Benefits under the Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families program described in section 402(b)(3)(A).''.
(b) Benefits Not Subject to Reimbursement.--Section 423(d)
of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1138a note) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(12) Benefits under part A of title IV of the Social
Security Act except for cash assistance provided to a
sponsored alien who is subject to deeming pursuant to section
408(h) of the Social Security Act.''.
(c) Treatment of Aliens.--Section 408 (42 U.S.C. 608) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(h) Special Rules Relating to the Treatment of 213A
Aliens.--
``(1) In general.--In determining whether a 213A alien is
eligible for cash assistance under a State program funded
under this part, and in determining the amount or types of
such assistance to be provided to the alien, the State shall
apply the rules of paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (5), and (6) of
subsection (f) of this section by substituting `213A' for
`non-213A' each place it appears, subject to section 421(e)
of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconcilation Act of 1996, and subject to section 421(f) of
such Act (which shall be applied by substituting `section
408(h) of the Social Security Act' for `subsection (a)').
``(2) 213A alien defined.--An alien is a 213A alien for
purposes of this subsection if the affidavit of support or
similar agreement with respect to the alien that was executed
by the sponsor of the alien's entry into the United States
was executed pursuant to section 213A of the Immigration and
Nationality Act.''.
(d) Effective Date and Applicability.--
(1) Effective date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect October 1, 2002.
(2) Applicability.--The amendments made by the provisions
of this section apply to benefits provided on or after the
effective date of this section.
Amend the table of contents accordingly.
(2) Amendment to be offered by Representative Clayton of
North Carolina or a designee, which shall be debatable for 30
minutes.
Page 113, line 10, insert ``or'' after the semicolon.
Page 113, line 13, strike ``; or'' and insert a period.
Page 113, strike lines 14 through 16.
Page 118, line 6, insert ``or'' after the semicolon.
Page 118, strike lines 7 through 18.
Page 118, line 19, strike ``(F)'' and insert ``(E)''.
Page 124, strike line 5 and all that follows through line 7
on page 137.
Amend the table of contents accordingly.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time,
and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
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.
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes
the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on the question of
agreeing to the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 213,
nays 204, not voting 17, as follows:
[Roll No. 165]
YEAS--213
Aderholt
Akin
Armey
Baker
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
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
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
Peterson (PA)
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
Sullivan
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thune
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
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--204
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
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
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
Napolitano
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
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--17
Bachus
Burton
Cunningham
Gibbons
Gordon
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Kolbe
Mascara
Miller, George
Murtha
Reyes
Stump
Stupak
Tauzin
Thornberry
Traficant
{time} 2136
Messrs. LARSON of Connecticut, HILL and MARKEY changed their vote
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 214,
noes 205, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 14, as follows:
[[Page H2499]]
[Roll No. 166]
AYES--214
Aderholt
Akin
Armey
Baker
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
Gibbons
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)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pence
Peterson (PA)
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
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schaffer
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Sullivan
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thune
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
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)
NOES--205
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
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
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (TX)
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
Miller, George
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Nadler
Napolitano
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
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Ryan (WI)
NOT VOTING--14
Bachus
Burton
Gordon
Hall (OH)
Harman
Kolbe
Mascara
Murtha
Reyes
Stearns
Stump
Stupak
Thornberry
Traficant
{time} 2150
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.
Stated against:
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like the record to show that on the
immediate past vote, rollcall 166, I voted; but somehow my vote was not
recorded. Had I been recorded, I would have voted ``no.''
____________________