[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

     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

[[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.

                          ____________________