Congressional Record, Volume 148 Issue 119 (Thursday, September 19, 2002)

[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 119 (Thursday, September 19, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H6376-H6383]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF HOUSE RESOLUTION 524, SENSE OF HOUSE
THAT CONGRESS SHOULD COMPLETE ACTION ON PERMANENT DEATH TAX REPEAL ACT
OF 2002, AND HOUSE RESOLUTION 525, SENSE OF HOUSE THAT CONGRESS SHOULD
COMPLETE ACTION ON LEGISLATION EXTENDING AND STRENGTHENING SUCCESSFUL
1996 WELFARE REFORMS

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 527, and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 527

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the resolution (H.
Res. 524) expressing the sense of the House that Congress
should complete action on the Permanent Death Tax Repeal Act
of 2002, and for consideration of the resolution. The
resolution shall be considered as read for amendment. The
resolution shall be debatable for one hour equally divided
and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member

[[Page H6377]]

of the Committee on Ways and Means. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the resolution to final
adoption without intervening motion.
Sec. 2. Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the resolution (H. Res. 525)
expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the
107th Congress should complete action on and present to the
President, before September 30, 2002, legislation extending
and strengthening the successful 1996 welfare reforms. The
resolution shall be considered as read for amendment. The
resolution shall be debatable for one hour equally divided
among and controlled by the chairmen and ranking minority
members of the Committees on Ways and Means and Education and
the Workforce. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the resolution to final adoption without
intervening motion.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Hastings) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate
only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Frost), 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. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 527 is a
closed rule providing for the consideration of two House resolutions.
The rule provides that House Resolution 524 shall be debatable in the
House for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. The
resolution shall be considered as read for amendment.
The rule further provides that House Resolution 525 shall be
debatable in the House for one hour equally divided and controlled by
the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and
Means and the Committee on Education and the Workforce. The resolution
shall be considered as read for amendment.
Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 524 is a resolution expressing the sense of the
House that Congress should complete action on, and present to the
President before adjournment, the Permanent Death Tax Repeal Act of
2002. Although the House passed this legislation more than 3 months ago
by a vote of 256-171, the other body has yet to take any action on this
important measure.
In fact, this legislation is only needed at all because the internal
rules of the Senate limit the Death Tax Repeal Act enacted into law
last year to a period of only 10 years. This means that unless we act
to make this repeal permanent, in the year 2010 the death tax will be
reimposed on thousands of families, farms and small businesses.
Nor can we wait 10 years to provide much-needed assurance that such a
massive tax increase will not be imposed. Estate tax planning is, by
definition, a long-term process. Families need to know today, and they
are entitled to know today, what taxes the Federal Government plans to
impose on them in the not-very-distant future.
For generations now, the death tax has been a leading cause of the
dissolution of family-run businesses and farms all across this country.
That not only hurts those families and the workers they employ, but in
time of economic distress, the death tax also has an adverse effect on
our overall economy. Repeal of the death tax will promote job creation
and economic growth by allowing family-owned farms and small businesses
to invest and reinvest in productive, job-creating expansion with
resources they would otherwise spend minimizing and paying Federal
death taxes.
Given the large number of bills passed by the House in this session
which have not been acted upon by the Senate, it is difficult to
explain to our constituents why Congress has failed to complete action
on this critically important measure. Today we have an opportunity to
send a clear message to the American people about the House's
commitment to act and act now to repeal this onerous and unfair tax
increase scheduled for 2010.
At the same time, Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity today to send a
similar clear message about the need for immediate action on equally
important legislation passed months ago here in the House. On May 16,
the House voted to reauthorize the historic welfare reform legislation
enacted in the 104th Congress in 1996.
Welfare reform stands as one of the proudest accomplishments of that
or any recent Congress. Literally millions of American lives have been
changed by landmark legislation which has helped move our most
disadvantaged citizens from welfare to work.
The numbers do not tell the whole story, but they are astonishing,
nonetheless. In the 5 years since we have enacted those reforms, nearly
3 million children have left poverty; employment by mothers most likely
to go on welfare rose by 40 percent; and welfare case loads have fallen
by 9 million, from 14 million recipients in 1994 to just 5 million
today.
Still, there is much left to do, and these historic reforms simply
must be reauthorized. The States have been full partners with the
Federal Government in this effort, as they should be, and they are
entitled to know whether we will continue working with them to help
struggling families help themselves.
As with the Death Tax Repeal, for months the Senate has failed to act
on this vitally important measure. Recently, 50 senators, including 40
Democrats, called for action on a 5-year reauthorization of this
successful welfare reform program. Still, no action has been taken.
Today we can add our voices to those Senators who are calling for
action before adjournment on two of the most meaningful measures this
Congress has had a chance to enact. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge my
colleagues to support both the rule and the two underlying resolutions
we will consider later this morning.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, people around the country watching this today, people
reading the newspapers, may be scratching their heads and saying, What
is going on here? What are these people doing?
I will tell Members what people on the other side are doing: They do
not want to work; they do not want to do anything serious. What are the
facts?
Congress is charged to pass 13 appropriation bills by October 1. The
House of Representatives, controlled by the other party, by the
Republican Party, has passed exactly 5 of those 13 bills. Where are the
other appropriation bills?
Mr. Speaker, we never did this when we were in charge. We always
brought the appropriation bills to the floor so they could then be sent
to the Senate and come back in a conference committee and dealt with in
an orderly way.

{time} 1045

We have an October 1 deadline for the start of the fiscal year. The
other side refuses to work, refuses to bring appropriation matters to
the floor. Why are they doing this? I can only speculate. Perhaps they
are trying to shield some of their vulnerable Members from having to
cast some tough votes to cut the budget. These folks on the other side,
like they say, they want to cut the budget and they want to keep
spending down. If they want to do that, where are the other eight
appropriations bills? Bring them up and let us have a series of votes.
This is probably as irresponsible as any action by any leadership that
I have seen in the 24 years that I have been in Congress.
That brings us to today. They do not want to bring appropriation
bills to the floor because they are afraid. They are worried that some
of their poor, vulnerable Members might have to actually vote on
something, go on the record on some issues, on education spending, on
health care spending, on a variety of issues. So what do they do? They
bring meaningless resolutions to the floor, sense of the Congress
resolutions urging the Senate to take action.
Mr. Speaker, the people who should be acting are the Members of this
body. What has happened here? We come in at 6:30 on Tuesday. That is
6:30 p.m., not 6:30 a.m., and we vote on a couple of procedural
matters; and then we are on the floor for a few hours on Wednesday and
we vote on a few things, again noncontroversial matters; and then we
are on the floor for a few hours on Thursday, and we leave at 3 o'clock
on Thursday afternoon. Without having

[[Page H6378]]

done the people's business. Shame on the other side. Shame on them.
Today, if that is what they want to do, if they do not want to
consider appropriation bills, which we ought to be doing, which ought
to be the first priority of this Congress, we have another suggestion
for them. If they are not willing to take up the appropriation bills,
let us take up some legislation that actually tries to help some
people. Let us take up some legislation dealing with the cost of
prescription drugs. We have legislation that has in fact already passed
the Senate dealing with the generic drug issue.
Mr. Speaker, as I said, the underlying resolution made in order under
this rule has only one real purpose, and it is not to help pass a
responsible welfare reform bill. It is a sham. Let us take a more
positive approach. Let us look at legislation that the other body has
passed, for example, the Prescription Drug Fair Competition Act. Today
the Republican leadership is asking the House to take up meaningless
legislation that is not going to go anywhere. The Prescription Drug
Fair Competition bill has the potential to help millions of consumers
right now. But I do not have to tell you that it has not been
considered in the House yet, and I do not see any indication that it is
on the schedule in the immediate future.
Right now, millions of seniors pay too much for vital medicines
because big drug companies are boosting their own profits by keeping
lower-cost generic drugs off the market. The Waxman-Brown-Thurman bill,
which we would like the opportunity to bring up for a vote since they
are not bringing anything else up for a vote, would stop this abusive
practice and reduce the cost of prescription drugs for millions of
American senior citizens. In fact, the legislation would reduce total
spending on prescription drugs by $60 billion over 10 years according
to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
We are going to ask for a ``no'' vote on the previous question, and I
will talk about this again a little bit later so that we can actually
bring this legislation up, legislation that will help senior citizens
right now. But no, the other side, they do not want to do anything.
They do not want to do this. They do not want to do appropriation
bills. They do not want to be here. They want to go home. We all know
there is an election going on and sure we would like to spend some time
with our constituents; but our first obligation is to legislate, is to
be on the floor of this House working, not to be here for 2\1/2\ days
starting at 6:30 on a Tuesday and ending at 3 o'clock on a Thursday.
Shame. Shame on the other side.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\
minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce), a member of the
Committee on Rules.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this
important rule that will allow for consideration of these timely
resolutions. We on this side of the aisle are very proud of all our
timely accomplishments, starting with our budget. We went on to pass
many, many important items for the American people: corporate
responsibility, prescription drugs, historic tax relief, welfare
reform, pension reform, and probably most importantly, homeland
security.
Mr. Speaker, I am a very strong supporter of all these things, the
death tax repeal permanency which this measure includes; but I am here
this morning to address an issue that I have been more closely involved
with. More than 4 months ago in this very Chamber, the House of
Representatives passed comprehensive welfare reform legislation to
build on the 1996 historic reforms that changed the culture of our
system from one of cyclical dependence across generations to one of
personal responsibility. This legislation is a culmination of strong
reflection and cooperation between Members of Congress who care
passionately about ensuring that all Americans have the opportunity to
live successful, productive lives.
Mr. Speaker, much has changed since 1996. We have witnessed welfare
rolls drop from 14 million to 5 million nationwide. More single mothers
are employed than ever before, and nearly 3 million children have been
lifted out of poverty. Prior to 1996 in my own home State of Ohio, we
were passing out welfare checks to the tune of $82 million every month.
Post-reforms, the price tag has been reduced to less than $27 million,
and it is going to those who really need the help. In one State alone,
that is a savings of $50 million.
The welfare reform bill we passed in the House some 4 months ago will
protect children by increasing child care funding and improving the
quality of child care. It will strengthen families and improve child
well-being. And it encourages States to implement innovative programs
to offer struggling families the tools and resources they need to
secure jobs and provide for their independence. Each one of these
provisions is unique to the House bill and will not become a reality if
the entire Congress does not finish up its work on reauthorizing
welfare reform.
As we consider this resolution, only 11 days remain before the 1996
reforms expire on September 30. The House of Representatives has done
its work. Failure to deliver this welfare reform reauthorization to the
President's desk before the expiration date could send the tremendous
progress that we have seen since 1996 spiraling backwards into a sea of
dependence.
Over the last 6 years, millions of American men and women have
overcome adversity, reversed course and rebuilt their lives. They have
taught their children about the dignity of having a job and providing
for their family. They have shared their stories with friends and
neighbors. They are proud. We cannot afford to backpedal on the
progress that we have made. Too many people have worked too hard to get
where they are today.
It is time for the Congress to complete action on this
reauthorization. The House has answered the call of the American people
and the President is waiting to sign this into law. I strongly
encourage my colleagues to support this rule and all the underlying
resolutions.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Pallone), who is a prime sponsor of legislation that will
actually help some people today dealing with the issue of generic
drugs.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the gentlewoman
from Ohio, but I could not believe that she would start out by talking
about the Republicans passing the budget. She knows very well that
unless you pass the appropriation spending bills pursuant to that
budget, you have not done anything. As my colleague from Texas
mentioned, the Republicans have only brought up five of the 13
appropriation bills. To suggest that they are dealing with the budget
and the spending is absurd. They are not. They have not dealt with it.
They are not bringing up the bills.
But, more important, this morning, this resolution that we are
considering essentially chastises the other body for not bringing up
welfare reform or estate tax repeal. The bottom line is that this body,
the House, has the opportunity under the Republican leadership to pass
a very important piece of legislation which is sponsored by my
colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), and another Republican
on the other side, the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson), that
would deal with the cost of prescription drugs. We know that our
constituents say that the biggest problem that they face is health care
costs and particularly the cost of prescription drugs. The other body
has already passed this bill, which is called the Greater Access to
Affordable Pharmaceuticals Act, by a 78-21 vote, overwhelmingly,
because they know it would save American consumers over $60 billion in
prescription drug costs. Rather than pass sense of Congress resolutions
here today that are meaningless, why do the Republicans in the House
not simply take up this Senate bill and save American consumers
millions of dollars on their drug costs?
This bill, the Senate-passed bill, would close the loophole and
restore competition in the pharmaceutical market while protecting an
inventor's right to legitimate patent protection. It deals with
patents. It deals with bringing generics to the market quicker in order
to cut the cost of prescription drugs. Under the bill, once the valid
patents on a prescription drug expire, competitors can enter the market
and consumers can get lower

[[Page H6379]]

prices. The reason the savings from this bill are so substantial is
that competition is the best weapon we have against overpriced
prescription drugs.
Why is it not happening? It is not happening because the
pharmaceutical industry is giving literally millions of dollars to the
Republicans and the Republican leadership to not bring this bill up,
because they do not want it to happen. Today in Congress Daily are ads,
large ads, full page, by the pharmaceutical industry, by PhRMA, the
brand-name drug lobby, saying, don't pass this generic bill. In Roll
Call there is another full-page ad: Don't pass this generic drug bill.
Because the pharmaceuticals are concerned that they are going to lose
money, that the American consumer is going to save money and they are
going to lose money if we bring up this bill. In fact, it has gotten so
bad that they are actually pressuring some of the companies that have
been lobbying and asking that the generic bill come up; they have been
pressuring them to withdraw their support for the generic bill.
There was another thing today in Congress Daily where they are trying
to get some of the Republicans who support this bill to not support the
discharge petition to bring it up. It is an outrage what the
pharmaceutical industry is doing. Let the House Republicans bring this
bill up rather than the nonsense that they are proposing this morning.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English).
Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, while I congratulate the other side on
their valiant, but unsuccessful, partisan attempt to change the
subject, I rise on behalf of this rule as an opportunity to put the
House on notice and put the House on record that we need to move right
now on welfare reform. This reform is the most important social reform
that Congress has achieved since I came here in 1994, and right now it
is at risk. Welfare caseloads under our initiative have fallen by 60
percent to their lowest levels since 1965. Nine million recipients have
gone from welfare to work, from dependency to independence. We have
learned from this success that we can help people bootstrap themselves
and become self-reliant and proud. We have reaffirmed that the welfare
system is supposed to provide a safety net, not a hammock.
Mr. Speaker, it has been 4 months since the House passed the Personal
Responsibility, Work, and Family Protection Act reauthorizing these
reforms. We passed this bipartisan bill which would build upon the
success of the past 6 years by improving day care and increasing
opportunity. We strengthened the welfare system by making it less
permissive, but at the same time providing real incentives to work.
Sadly, some on the left would rather go back to the days of welfare
dependency, limited opportunity, and stunted hope for some of our most
underprivileged Americans. These reactionaries want to run out the
clock on welfare reform here today so that they can turn back the clock
and repeal those critical welfare reforms. We cannot allow that to
happen. My answer to them is that we need to move forward.
Congress has a narrow opportunity to do something real for our
neighbors in need. Congress must pass a 5-year welfare reauthorization
bill now, before this program expires.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
The previous speaker mentioned running out the clock. The Republican
leadership announced we are not going to be in session tomorrow and we
are not going to be in session Monday. They have lots of time for this.
They just do not have time to actually legislate.

{time} 1100

Now, the Republican leadership has announced that we will not be in
session on Friday, we will not be in session on the next Monday, and we
will not come back until 6:30 on Tuesday. Meanwhile, time is ticking
away and all Federal agencies are going to run out of money because
appropriation bills have not been passed by this body on September 30.
So I would urge them, if they are very concerned about time, that they
bring those appropriation bills to the floor so our Federal agencies
did not run out of money on October 1.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Brown).
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas for
yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, rather than acting on bills that actually help the
American people in some way, Republican leadership is focusing on
meaningless resolutions that chastise the other body for not taking
action on measures the House has passed. If we had sent the other body
decent legislation, rather than bad ideas, the situation might be
different. I am thinking of the Republican crown jewel, a Medicare drug
coverage bill so grossly inadequate, written by the drug companies,
that it is an insult to Medicare beneficiaries and to their families.
But that is another story.
Fair is fair, Mr. Speaker. Before Republican leadership demonizes the
other body, they might want to rid the skeletons from their own closet.
The other body, for instance, passed legislation that finally does
something about out-of-control prescription drug prices, and did so in
a responsible, bipartisan manner. But Republican leadership in this
House has blocked even a vote on that legislation, which will save
American consumers, mostly the elderly, $60 billion.
Brand and generic drug companies alike exploit loopholes in the laws
to block competition in the marketplace. The Federal Trade Commission
has acknowledged it, the Patent and Trademark Office has acknowledged
it, the President has acknowledged it. But House leadership and the
prescription drug industry are virtually the only ones who have not
acknowledged it.
Why is that? Could it be the millions of dollars the drug industry
gives to Republican Members of Congress? Could it be that the drug
industry, using drug industry money through phony ads run through a
group called 60-Plus and run through a group called USA Seniors, that
they are running ads in support of the drug plan that they wrote, the
drug industry wrote on behalf of Republican Members of Congress?
Could it be, in the most cynical move I have seen in my 10 years in
this body, the drug industry wrote a bill, a prescription drug bill
that really was not worth very much, pushed it through Congress, gave
money to Republican Members of Congress, then ran ads, in the most
cynical move imaginable, thanking those Republican Members of Congress
for voting for it and saying that it was an ad written by United
Seniors Association, but it is actually funded by the drug industry,
which they will not tell you?
The Senate-passed bill, Mr. Speaker, closes the loopholes the FTC has
identified and would deliver more competitive prescription drug prices
to the American people. There are 3 companion measures in the House,
any of which would restore competition in the prescription drug
marketplace, saving consumers $60 billion. Some of those are sponsored
by Republicans, but Republican leadership will not let those bills come
to a vote. Instead, we are passing meaningless resolutions today.
If the House squanders this opportunity, we will likely go home
without providing any kind of prescription drug relief to seniors and
others who desperately need that help.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to permit consideration. I urge
Republican leadership to allow us to vote and to take House action now
on legislation to stop the brand name and generic drug industry from
blocking this legislation and stop their shenanigans, to bring
prescription drug prices down, something we could do today in this
body. The other body passed this legislation. If it dies in the House,
the Republican leadership can congratulate themselves for successfully
catering to the drug industry again and again and again at the expense
of the American public.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun).
Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, in 1996 Congress set out on an
ambitious plan to transform welfare from a program that kept people
dependent upon government handouts to a structure that empowers people
on their own to be self-sufficient.

[[Page H6380]]

Today, I believe we can declare welfare reform a huge success.
Consider these facts: The poverty gap for families with children has
decreased by over $4 billion since 1996. Hunger among children has been
cut in half, and the poverty rate for African American children is at
its lowest point in U.S. history.
Success stories abound. One of my constituents, Dorothy, reports that
when she was hit hard several years ago, she participated in an
innovative program designed to help people become more self-sufficient.
Once on the verge of bankruptcy, she is now employed and regularly
contributes to a savings account in hopes that one day, one day, she
will be owning a home.
The House passed H.R. 4737 to reauthorize the welfare reform program
last May. The Senate has not acted on it. All of us on Capitol Hill
must continue on the path of reform by working together to send a
welfare reform authorization to the President this month.
Support the rule and give our constituents the well-deserved
opportunity to have a hand up, not a handout.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would be more impressed with
my colleagues on the other side and their commitment to a full
deliberation of the welfare bill if they had not used their power in
the rules to shut off adequate effort in this House when we debated
welfare to address one of its great defects, child care. They would not
allow an amendment which I think would have passed if they had given us
a chance to vote on it, which is why they would not, which would have
expanded child care as part of welfare.
But we are not just talking about welfare. As I listen to the Members
on the other side complaining that a legislative body is not doing its
work, this is the end of September. We have not passed an
appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services or
Education or Labor or Transportation or Housing and Urban Development
or the Environmental Protection Administration.
The gentleman from Ohio talked about September 30 being the date when
the welfare bill expires. The whole Government expires on September 30
and they have not passed any bill for the domestic agencies. Listening
to people who have that record of nonfeasance complain that somebody
else is not getting its work done, I feel like I kind of wandered into
a nudist colony and somebody complained that I was not wearing a tie. I
have never seen a more bizarre example of people trying to object to a
fault that they are themselves guilty of.
We all understand, by the way, why we do not have appropriations
bills. We have a split in the Republican Party. We voted in 2001 a very
large tax cut. Since we voted that tax cut, this administration has
committed to spending more than half a trillion dollars over the next
10 years between the war in Afghanistan, the war they want to have in
Iraq, running Iraq, running Afghanistan, homeland security, and a lot
of other things. The result is that there is not enough money to fund
the Government even at what I would consider the minimal level that
many of the Republicans want. So here is the problem. We have the
intellectually consistent Republicans who, having voted for a tax cut,
are prepared to make substantial reductions in the appropriations
bills. We have many of us on the Democratic side who thought the tax
cut went too far and we do not support such drastic restrictions as
shutting down efforts to clean up Superfund sites or taking away funds
from public housing or reducing other important funds, but then we have
the bulk of the Republican Party. They voted for a tax cut which
reduced revenues, but they will not support appropriations bills that
reflect the revenue reductions. So what do they do? They do not pass
anything. There is a split between the Republican party, between the
intellectually honest conservatives who voted for a tax cut and are
prepared to reduce spending, and the rest of the Republicans who said,
wait a minute, you must be kidding. We cannot reduce spending to that
level. We cannot let the American people know what the true
consequences of our tax cut are. So how do we deal with this? We do not
vote on an appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human
Services. We do not vote on an education bill. They are going to give
us a big CR, a big continuing resolution.
I can remember Ronald Reagan standing here waving a continuing
resolution and decrying it. I guess this is the birthday present that
Ronald Reagan gets this year, a complete repudiation of his
denunciation of continuing resolutions by a Republican Party incapable
of appropriating.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Mrs. Thurman).
Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Frost) for yielding me this time.
This debate today is on a rule that is to bring a sense of Congress
on two issues that in fact this House has passed, the estate tax and
the welfare reform. I do not know that we would be having this debate
on the sense of Congress if in fact there could have been an
opportunity for us to sit down and compromise on the estate tax. We
could have looked at the $6 million that we tried to offer as an
alternative on this floor at 99.7 percent of the debate which was about
small businesses and farmers, and the numbers show that in fact that $6
million would have done that. No. Instead, we have got to worry about
how we are going to cover for Ken Lay and his wealthy friends. And I
have got to say that just does not get it with me.
On top of that, you talk about welfare reform. It is in the Senate.
Today it is my understanding that the Senate was going to be talking
about homeland security, which you have also criticized them for. There
are only so many hours in a day. I think they are going to get to
welfare reform, but while they are getting to all these issues that you
are talking about, there ought to be a debate on them, which is what
the Senate is trying to do. So in saying all of that, here we are, that
was just mentioned by the previous speaker. We have got a situation
here in the House where we cannot get the Health and Human Services
bill up. So any welfare reform that is done on paper is meaningless
unless we have the money to back it up. And right now we have nothing
because we have no HHS bill that would provide those dollars.
So what are we trying to do on this side? We are trying to talk about
another piece of legislation that has passed the Senate. We cannot have
a blame game. You criticize them for not passing something. Then you
come over here and we will say to you, guess what, there is a piece of
legislation that every one of us would be best to be able to go home
and talk about, and that is the generic drug bill. And by the way, that
does not cost us anything but it saves $60 billion over the next 10
years on making sure that we have generic drugs coming to our
constituents.
So what is happening here is that we have a bill that has been
prepared and passed on a bipartisan vote in the Senate on generic drugs
that now could be over here, picked up, passed. We could go home and
not talking about it costing the Federal Government anything. But, no,
we are not doing that.
I was home in August. I was out there every day, and I talked to the
people in my district, and I just want to talk about a couple of people
that see people every day. We had Rick Limehouse, who is a pharmacist
at the Pill Box Pharmacy in Clermont, and he said he is appalled at the
escalating cost of medication just in the 2 years he has been in
business. Because of the public outcry against these rising costs, he
said that some drug companies have started to offer discount cards that
discount what the pharmacy can charge but not what the pharmacy pays
for the medication. At the same time, the manufacturers continue to
raise the price of their medication at a rate beyond anything that can
be attributed to inflation. The generic bill, getting these drugs to
the market, would be helpful.
Pharmacist Ken Norfleet of Brooksville said, ``Every day,'' and we
just do not happen to see this every day, ``we see people coming into
the pharmacy who decide not to buy their prescriptions,'' or that they
are cutting their dosages in half because they cannot afford the high
cost. And what are they doing? They are jeopardizing their health and
their well-being.

[[Page H6381]]

I would call upon my colleagues from the other side. There is a
discharge petition down here that does not say only Democrats can sign.
It says House Members can sign, Members of Congress. How about if we
cannot take home the appropriations bill and we have to talk about
continuing resolutions? How about at least let us take home one present
to them. Let us at least show them that we are concerned about their
cost of medications. Let us at least have the stomach to stand here,
sign that petition that says we are willing to cost not only to seniors
but to all families on generic drugs. That would be a gift to them. And
as we go through the tax cuts and talk about these things, I hope we
all will remember what Mr. Lindsey said about the war, that it is $100
billion. We are already into deficit spending. Do you not think we
should be talking to our constituents about not leaving this debt to
our children and our grandchildren?

{time} 1115

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to advise my friend,
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), that I just have one speaker to
close, so I will reserve my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Hinchey).
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to remind us all that it is
interesting to have resolutions on the floor that recommend action by
the other body, but the important thing is for us to do our work here.
I am a member of the Committee on Appropriations. We have eight of
the 13 appropriations bills which have been dealt with by the
committee, but which have not been put out here on the floor to be
dealt with by the full body. Why is that? The main reason is because
the leadership of this House has taken an approach to fiscal policy
which is totally unreasonable and unrealistic. This is not anything
new; it has been going on now for a couple of years. My Republican
colleagues have taken us from a situation within the Federal budget of
growing surpluses to now deepening deficits, and they do not know how
to deal with it. They do not know how to solve the problem that they
have created for the people of this country with growing deficits in
the Federal budget. They cannot fund the necessary things that need to
be done.
In addition to that, there is a whole host of issues that are crying
out for attention; most notably, a prescription drug program which will
allow the senior citizens of this country to get the medication they
need to restore themselves to health and to maintain their health. We
have a good bill.
If we want to talk about something the Senate has done, they have
passed a good bill. Their bill provides for a prescription drug program
as an entitlement under Medicare. That is what the AARP wants, that is
what all of the associations that represent senior citizens want, and
it is what the older people of our country want. They want an
entitlement program under Medicare for prescription drugs. You refuse
to bring that bill out. Why? Because you are the great beneficiaries of
the largesse of the pharmaceutical companies. They have made enormous
contributions to the Republican Party in this House in order to keep
this bill from getting to the floor.
So instead of telling the Senate what they need to do, let us deal
with our own business right here in this House.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
It is with deep regret that I observe the timidity on the other side.
We have two great political parties in this country. We want to join
the issues. We want to enter into debate on this floor. We want to cast
votes. We know that we do not necessarily have the votes here; they are
in the majority, they probably can pass anything they want to, but we
want the opportunity to debate and consider legislation. They are
denying us this opportunity, not just with this generic drug
legislation that we would like to bring up today, but the legislation
that funds the Government of the United States.
Mr. Speaker, it is a sad day for the country, quite frankly, that the
Republican Party has become so timid that they want to show up at 6:30
on Tuesday and leave at 3 o'clock on Thursday because they do not want
their Members to have to vote on tough issues. We are paid, hired by
the American people, and paid to show up here, to work a full week, and
to take tough votes, and if they are not willing to take tough votes,
if they are not willing to bring matters to the floor, then perhaps it
is time for someone else to be in charge.
Mr. Speaker, if the previous question is defeated, I will offer an
amendment to the rule. My amendment will provide that immediately after
the House passes these do-nothing resolutions, it will take up the
Prescription Drug Fair Competition Act of 2002, H.R. 5272. My amendment
provides that the bill will be considered under an open amendment
process so that all Members will be able to fully debate and offer
amendments to this critical bill. It is time for the House to do its
work and pass legislation to help the American people, not simply play
blame games.
A ``no'' vote on the previous question will allow the House to take
up this bill and provide much-needed relief for the high cost of
prescription drugs. However, a ``yes'' vote on the previous question
will prevent the House from taking up a bill that actually makes a
difference.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment
be printed in the Record immediately before the vote on the previous
question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous
question, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such
time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from California
(Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Hastings), for yielding me this time, and I
congratulate him on his management on what clearly is a very important
measure here. It has been mischaracterized by my friends on the other
side of the aisle, but we are very proud of what we have been able to
accomplish in this 107th Congress. It is clear that Republicans are in
the majority, but we have what is today a six-vote majority. It is
extraordinarily narrow, but we have been able to work in a bipartisan
way to address the issues that we are going to be bringing up once we
pass this rule.
It was with bipartisan support that we brought about reform of the
welfare system. It is with bipartisan support that we passed repeal of
the death tax. It is with bipartisan support, Mr. Speaker, that we were
able to bring about pension reform. These are measures that Democrats
and Republicans alike supported in this body, and we are very proud
that we were able to provide, under the leadership of Speaker Hastert,
the encouragement and the direction and the momentum to get these
measures through.
Now, we have done this along with our work on the appropriations
bills. Mr. Speaker, I think that it is important for us to note that in
the past when our friends on the other side of the aisle controlled
this body, we had, in fact, continuing resolutions. We have always gone
through challenges when we have dealt with the appropriations process.
Where are we today? Well, this House has passed five appropriations
bills, appropriations bills that deal with both domestic and
international issues and our national security issues as well. We have
passed the Interior appropriations. We have passed the Treasury-Postal
appropriations bill, both of which have measures that deal with
domestic issues here. We have passed the Military Construction
appropriations bill. We have passed the Department of Defense
appropriations bill, and we have passed the Legislative Branch
appropriations bill, obviously dealing with this institution, dealing
with the very important security here in the Capitol.
So we are very proud of the fact that we have been able to pass these
appropriations bills, and we know, Mr. Speaker, that we have even more
work that the committee has done, the Committee on Appropriations,
dealing with

[[Page H6382]]

the Energy and Water appropriations bill, the Foreign Operations
appropriations bill. As we sit here debating these issues, our
colleagues should know, Mr. Speaker, that the members of the Committee
on Appropriations and the leadership is working together on these
issues. So we hope very much that we are going to be able to complete
as many of these measures as possible.
The resolution that we are dealing with today, in fact, is focused on
the accomplishments, the accomplishments of the 107th Congress. We have
passed a prescription drug bill from the United States House of
Representatives. We have been able to provide tax relief to middle
income wage-earners in this country providing child care benefits and
repeal of the marriage tax penalty. We have been able to deal with a
wide range of issues in a bipartisan way again, Mr. Speaker, since the
tragedy of a year ago on September 11. We have been able to pass a
supplemental appropriations bill that has helped us deal with our
national security. We have been able to come together and work on a
wide range of issues to combat this war on terrorism. Those things have
been done in a bipartisan way.
So that is why it is very troubling, Mr. Speaker, to hear my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about the fact that we
have not acted. Yes, there continues to be more work to do. But we have
been able, as I said, to get these measures out of the House of
Representatives and, unfortunately, the Senate has not taken up a
number of these measures.
Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman said with regard to the
appropriations bills, well, the committee has done them. Why would we
be taking 5 days off now if the committee has, as he said, passed these
appropriations bills? Why are they not on the floor? Why do we not get
those appropriations bills that the committee has already voted on?
Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time, Mr. Speaker, I would say that
we have been able to pass these five appropriations bills and we are
working to move these measures forward. These measures that we have,
and I have yielded and I am going to close the debate here now, we have
had, in fact, these other very important measures that need to be
reaffirmed here with this measure that we have, and we are going to
continue to work on this appropriations process, and that is our job
and we are going to continue to do it.
So let me say, Mr. Speaker, I have already yielded, I am going to
close the debate now so that we can move ahead with the vote on the
previous question and so that we can then move ahead with these very
important measures. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that I believe that it is
the right thing for us to do to reaffirm our support for permanent
repeal of the death tax, which has been pointed out by my colleagues,
again, in a bipartisan way, how punitive this is, how it hurts economic
growth and it stifles the progress that small businesses and family
farms have been able to make.
I also believe that when we look at the benefits with 7 million
people having, since 1996, come off of the welfare rolls, the ability
that we are going to have to strengthen that. We need to reaffirm our
support from this institution for that very important welfare reform.
So, Mr. Speaker, I urge strong support of this rule and for these
resolutions so that we can, in fact, move ahead with our very important
work.
The amendment previously referred to by Mr. Frost is as follows:

At the end of the resolution add the following new
sections:
Sec. . Notwithstanding any other provision in this
resolution, immediately after disposition of resolution H.
Res. 525, the Speaker shall declare the House resolved into
the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union
for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5272) to amend the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to provide greater
access to affordable pharmaceuticals. 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 one hour 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. 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. . If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports
that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the
next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the
third day order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV,
resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further
consideration of that bill.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. 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.
Mr. FROST. 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.
Following the vote on the previous question, 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 adoption of the
resolution, and then on the motion to suspend the rules and pass House
Resolution 523 postponed from yesterday.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 214,
nays 202, not voting 16, as follows:

[Roll No. 397]

YEAS--214

Aderholt
Akin
Armey
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boozman
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Collins
Combest
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
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holt
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
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
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
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
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
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--202

[[Page H6383]]

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
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (TX)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
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
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
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
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOT VOTING--16

Bachus
Blagojevich
Bryant
Carson (IN)
Cooksey
Gephardt
Gillmor
Hilleary
Jenkins
McKinney
Miller, George
Mink
Oxley
Roukema
Stump
Waters

{time} 1150

Ms. LEE and Messrs. HONDA, SPRATT, RAHALL, EVANS, HILLIARD and FORD
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. LaTourette). 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

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote, followed by a
5-minute vote on the motion to suspend the rules on H. Res. 523.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 213,
noes 200, not voting 19, as follows:

[Roll No. 398]

AYES--213

Aderholt
Akin
Armey
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boozman
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Collins
Combest
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
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hansen
Harman
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
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
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
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
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
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--200

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
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
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (TX)
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
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
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
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--19

Bachus
Blagojevich
Bryant
Carson (IN)
Cooksey
Gephardt
Gillmor
Hilleary
Hunter
Inslee
Jenkins
Miller, George
Mink
Oxley
Payne
Roukema
Rush
Stark
Stump

{time} 1200

Mr. CRAMER changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
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.

____________________