[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.''

                          ____________________