[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 14772-14776]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       TANF EXTENSION ACT OF 2005

  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 3021) to reauthorize the Temporary Assistance for Needy 
Families block grant program through September 30, 2005, and for other 
purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 3021

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``TANF Extension Act of 
     2005''.

     SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF THE TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY 
                   FAMILIES BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM THROUGH SEPTEMBER 
                   30, 2005.

       (a) In General.--Activities authorized by part A of title 
     IV of the Social Security Act, and by sections 510, 1108(b), 
     and 1925 of such Act, shall continue through September 30, 
     2005, in the manner authorized for fiscal year 2004, 
     notwithstanding section 1902(e)(1)(A) of such Act, and out of 
     any money in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise 
     appropriated, there are hereby appropriated such sums as may 
     be necessary for such purpose. Grants and payments may be 
     made pursuant to this authority through the fourth quarter of 
     fiscal year 2005 at the level provided for such activities 
     through the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2004.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 403(a)(3)(H)(ii) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 603(a)(3)(H)(ii)) is amended 
     by striking ``June 30'' and inserting ``September 30''.

[[Page 14773]]



     SEC. 3. EXTENSION OF THE NATIONAL RANDOM SAMPLE STUDY OF 
                   CHILD WELFARE AND CHILD WELFARE WAIVER 
                   AUTHORITY THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2005.

       Activities authorized by sections 429A and 1130(a) of the 
     Social Security Act shall continue through September 30, 
     2005, in the manner authorized for fiscal year 2004, and out 
     of any money in the Treasury of the United States not 
     otherwise appropriated, there are hereby appropriated such 
     sums as may be necessary for such purpose. Grants and 
     payments may be made pursuant to this authority through the 
     fourth quarter of fiscal year 2005 at the level provided for 
     such activities through the fourth quarter of fiscal year 
     2004.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Herger) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
McDermott) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3021, the TANF Extension 
Act of 2005, as amended. This legislation will extend for 3 additional 
months certain welfare programs, including the Temporary Assistance For 
Needy Families and child care programs within the Committee on Ways and 
Mean's jurisdiction, so those programs would continue to operate at 
their current funding levels through September 30, 2005.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
the Budget and a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into a colloquy with 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the distinguished chairman 
of the Committee on Ways and Means, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Barton), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce.
  Under the fiscal year 2006 budget resolution, it is necessary to 
offset the cost of the Transitional Medical Assistance extension, TMA. 
It is my understanding that the gentleman from California has agreed to 
extend TMA for an additional 3 months as part of this welfare extension 
bill. It is my further understanding that the gentleman has agreed to 
include this provision, with the understanding that the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce, which has jurisdiction over the TMA program, will 
bear the cost of this and any subsequent extensions.
  I yield to the gentleman from California to determine whether or not 
that is his understanding.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct in his 
understanding. The Transitional Medical Assistance is an important work 
support for low-income families making the transition from welfare to 
work. Therefore, it is important that we are here today to continue 
this program.
  Let me remind the House that the House has extended TMA nine times 
since the welfare reform law expired in 2002. In the course of these 
extensions, the Committee on Ways and Means has been charged with more 
than $500 million in costs associated with extending the TMA program, 
which is, as the chairman correctly noted, under the jurisdiction of 
the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the 
gentleman's willingness to continue this important program as he has in 
the past.
  I would like to ask the distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce to further clarify how this TMA extension and 
future TMA extensions will be handled by the House.
  Is it the gentleman's understanding that the TMA extension and future 
TMA extensions will be paid for with offsets under the jurisdiction of 
the Committee on Energy and Commerce that are in excess of the savings 
required under the budget resolution?
  I yield to the distinguished chairman to find out if that is his 
understanding.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman's understanding is 
correct. This TMA extension and any further extensions will be offset 
with savings in addition to those required by reconciliation.
  I would note that the proper place to address a TMA extension beyond 
the next 3 months would be in the context of Medicaid reform as part of 
reconciliation. However, the committee that I chair reserves the right 
to include these offsets in other legislative vehicles, as necessary.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would like to thank 
both of these distinguished chairmen for their cooperation. I would 
commit, on behalf of the House Committee on the Budget, that when this 
bill and subsequent extensions of TMA are offset as part of the 
reconciliation or other legislation, the Committee on Ways and Means 
will be held harmless for the cost of this and any future extensions of 
TMA.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this will be the 10th extension of these programs since 
the original authorization of the 1996 welfare reform law expired in 
2002. That law produced remarkable results. Work among welfare 
recipients doubled. The poorest single-mother families reported a 67 
percent increase in their real earnings between 1995 and 2002. Single 
mothers' real wages continued to increase during the 2000-2004 period, 
despite the 2001 recession and terrorist attacks.
  Despite predictions of welfare reform opponents that the 1996 welfare 
bill would increase poverty, the number of children in poverty fell by 
more than 1 million. The black and Hispanic child-poverty rates hit 
record lows. Welfare caseloads fell 60 percent to their lowest levels 
since 1965. Welfare funds stayed constant, and child care funds grew, 
even as caseloads plummeted. Taxpayer resources per family on welfare 
more than doubled from $7,000 per year to $16,000 per year today.
  In 2002 and 2003, the House passed comprehensive welfare reform 
legislation that would have extended these programs for a full 5 years. 
That legislation also included modest adjustments designed to encourage 
and support more work, higher incomes, stronger families, and less 
poverty. These House-passed bills offered up to $4 billion over 5 years 
and added child care funding to support more work.
  Unfortunately, our friends in the Senate did not follow suit, and so 
we have been forced to come to the floor with repeated short-term 
extensions.
  Mr. Speaker, it is important that we continue these programs, and I 
urge all Members to support this legislation. But while we mark time, 
we are missing out on many ways to help even more low-income parents 
and families leave welfare for work. We must do more to encourage 
States and local communities to support strong, healthy families.
  The subcommittee I chair has, once again, approved legislation that 
tracks the comprehensive welfare reform bill of the House that the 
House passed before. I expect in the coming months the full committee 
on Ways and Means and this House will once again act on comprehensive 
welfare reform legislation as part of the budget reconciliation 
process. Regardless of the process, our goals remain the same: to 
encourage and support more work, less poverty, and stronger families.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe this process of continued extensions of 
welfare programs is finally nearing an end. I look forward to working 
with our Members to get this done so more families can know the dignity 
of collecting paychecks instead of welfare checks.

                              {time}  1100

  In the meantime, I urge support of the legislation before us that 
continues these welfare programs in their current form.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, these are going to be the two classic glass-half-empty/
glass-half-full speeches because the chairman has told you the good 
things that have happened, and there are some. But, today, we have two 
bad choices in front of us. The first is to support this BandAid 
approach that has temporarily continued the funding for TANF

[[Page 14774]]

and the child care development block grants for yet another 3 months. 
The other alternative is to abandon our most vulnerable citizens until 
the Republican majority accepts its responsibility to chart a new 
course that provides a helping hand, not a slap on the wrist.
  Now, I deplore these kind of crossroads at which we stand. Ten times 
in the last 3 years we have stood right here, as we do today, the lives 
and welfare of the disadvantaged hanging in the balance. At a time like 
this, America should shine. Instead, the Republican majority strains 
the needs of our most vulnerable citizens to the breaking point.
  Ten temporary extensions over 3 years should send the House a clear 
and unmistakable message. We need to treat America's disadvantaged as 
first class citizens by charting a new course for the long-term 
reauthorization of the TANF program.
  On this Republican watch, the House has taken up hopelessly divisive 
bills that have drawn the condemnation of mayors, governors, welfare 
directors, religious leaders and poverty experts. Time and again, the 
Republicans have tried to terminate Federal responsibility by replacing 
State flexibility with unfunded mandates and changing the focus of 
welfare reform from real jobs to make-work. Nothing good comes from 
this approach.
  Instead, this wrong path has led to legislative gridlock. Those who 
suffer most are those who most need our help. The disadvantaged need 
our compassionate ideas and commitment to promote reforms that will 
help them leave welfare and actually escape poverty. This goal is 
particularly important when you consider that an additional 4.3 million 
Americans have fallen into poverty over the last 3 years for which we 
have data. In 2003 alone, almost another 800,000 children fell into 
poverty. Now, that should be a rallying cry, driving us to act.
  But, instead, the Republicans use the misfortune of some Americans to 
suggest that poverty is rising because welfare recipients are not 
working hard enough. That is just wrong. It is callous and cold-
hearted. The problem is not the unwillingness of people on welfare to 
work. The problem is too many of those leaving welfare are not finding 
work, or they are finding jobs that do not lift them out of poverty. We 
could, of course, help by providing more child-care assistance, job 
training and a higher minimum wage, but the Republican leadership and 
the President have resisted such reforms. Instead, the Republicans try 
to sell the same worn-out threadbare suit of clothes again.
  It happened again in March when the majority unveiled their new 3-
year old idea from the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Human Resources. 
Nothing has happened since. Nothing, leaving many to believe the 
Republican leadership intends to include the welfare legislation as 
part of the upcoming budget reconciliation bill rather than considering 
it as a separate measure. Such a process will make it harder to provide 
the necessary investments in child care because Republicans know the 
budget reconciliation process is meant to cut programs, not improve 
them. And that is just fine by the Republican leadership because they 
do not believe working families deserve any more help for child care. 
Like so much from their leadership, the rhetoric does not match the 
reality.
  According to data from their own HHS, Health and Human Services 
Department, only about a quarter of the children who are eligible for 
child-care subsidies under State eligibility criteria actually receive 
assistance. This fraction drops to roughly one out of seven, if you use 
the Federal eligibility standard for daycare assistance. The data does 
not lie. We are falling short in helping low-income families meet the 
challenges of raising a family and at the same time going to work.
  President Bush's response to this problem is to make it even worse. 
His proposed 2006 budget shows the number of people receiving child 
assistance will decline, decline by 300,000 over the next 5 years. So 
the administration is proposing even greater work requirements for 
welfare recipients at the same time that the President proposes cutting 
child care. So much for a helping hand.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle suggest their bill is 
modestly more generous on child care than the administration's budget. 
However, that Republican package, in reality, underfunds child care 
assistance by $10.6 billion over the next 5 years. That is their 
calculation.
  Republicans want to outsource Federal responsibility to the States 
without a dime more to address a $10 billion deficit. That leads 
nowhere except forcing States to face deep cuts in child-care 
assistance for the working poor.
  Mr. Speaker, there is a better way. We have proposed legislation that 
gives the States the flexibility and the funding needed to move welfare 
recipients into real jobs and out of poverty. It is the right thing to 
do, and this is the right time to do it. And with that hope, I support 
this temporary extension of the current law. I will not abandon 
disadvantaged Americans at the very time they need us most.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to remind the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) 
that, during the last several years, we have passed out of this House 
two bills, both of which have offered as much as $4 billion more for 
child care, both of which the gentleman from Washington opposed.
  I might also mention that welfare case loads during this period of 
time of this legislation has fallen by 9 million, from 14 million 
recipients in 1994 to fewer than 5 million today. Again, the proof of 
the pudding is in the eating.
  I think it is very clear how incredibly successful this program has 
been, and we need to move forward to make it even more successful.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. McDermott) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I must tell you, I am extremely disappointed. In 2002, 
the TANF law expired. This is the tenth temporary extension. These are 
missed opportunities. The Democrats believe that we should extend the 
TANF bill. But we should stop trying to micromanage from Washington, 
one size fits all, and we should provide resources necessary for our 
States to be able to lift American families out of poverty.
  Our objective in TANF reauthorization should be to lift families out 
of poverty, yet the bills that have passed this body that the chairman 
of the committee has referred to fails to incorporate lifting families 
out of poverty as a core requirement of TANF.
  We should be providing education and training to the mothers leaving 
welfare so that they can move up the economic ladder, yet the bills 
that have passed this body have restricted our States in their ability 
to provide education and training to the people on welfare.
  We should be providing safe and affordable child care so that 
families can, in fact, move up the economic ladder and accept 
employment opportunities. Yet the bills that have passed this body have 
provided inadequate funds for child care. We have provided more 
mandates, $11 billion more needed in child care alone, yet the bill 
that passed this body provides only $1 billion, an unfunded Federal 
mandate. We can do better.
  If we really want to lift families out of poverty, let us sit down 
now. Stop stalling. Let us work together, Democrats and Republicans, so 
that we can have a TANF reauthorization bill that will help American 
families out of poverty rather than the bills that have passed this 
body that will step backward.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to remind, again, those who speak detrimentally of this 
legislation that, since their opposition to this, no additional $4 
billion for child care over the next 5 years has been able to have been 
offered. No assurance for

[[Page 14775]]

full TANF funding through 2010 has been able to be available, that 
would be available in this legislation. No assurance of supplemental 
grants for low benefits in poor States. No assurance. And it goes on 
and on.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Cardin).
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me just point out to the gentleman from 
California, we have worked together when he was chairman and I was 
ranking member. I would just urge the gentleman to sit down and try to 
work out a bill that represents the views of all people of this country 
and all 435 Members of this distinguished body.
  I would point out very clearly that, the last time I checked, the 
Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate and the White 
House since 2002, and yet we have been unable to pass a TANF 
reauthorization bill.
  Stop placing blame. Let us sit down and work together. Give us a 
chance to sit at the table, and you are going to have a much better 
bill that will help American families escape poverty and will give the 
resources necessary to the States so that they can get the job done and 
will provide safe and affordable daycare, child care for the families 
that need it.
  In my own State of Maryland, the only way you can get child care is 
to go on welfare. That is the wrong message. Let us get it done right.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, here we go again. Instead of making the 
TANF law better, instead of giving welfare recipients the tools needed 
to move from welfare to self-sufficiency, we are once again extending a 
bill that has continuously moved people from welfare into permanent 
poverty.
  Why are we not making education or training count as a work activity 
for welfare recipients so that individuals can receive the skills they 
need for jobs that actually pay a livable wage, jobs that pay above the 
poverty level?
  Why are we not providing quality available child care that includes 
care for infants and for weekend and evening workers to help welfare 
parents keep their jobs and become self-sufficient, because if parents 
do not have a safe convenient place to leave their children, they 
cannot go to work? And if they do, they can really concentrate on their 
job. Believe me, I know because, over 35 years ago, I was a single 
mother with three small children. My children were 1, 3 and 5 years 
old, and their father financially abandoned us. Even though I was 
working full-time, I needed welfare to keep our lives together. But it 
was not until my mother moved to our town and I could have her take 
care of the children during the day that I could pay 100 percent 
attention to the work that I was doing. As soon as she moved into town, 
I was promoted to management in my company because I did not have one 
ear and eye home and one at the job. And then when I got home, I was 
100 percent there for my children. But when I was at work, I was 100 
percent at work.
  So I was promoted to management, and later, I worked my way off 
welfare and off poverty. Eventually, I started my own business, and now 
I am a seven-term Member of the House of Representatives. Let me tell 
you, I am not sure any of that could have happened without the help and 
the leg up that I received from the welfare system. And believe me, I 
have paid back into the system many, many times over, and so have most 
of the women who have been given a chance for a higher education, who 
have been given the support of a good child care system to help them 
stay in the work force so that they can achieve.
  So why are we wasting our time extending something that has moved 
welfare recipients, yes, out of welfare, but yes, into poverty with an 
idea they may never be able to move out of poverty because they have 
not gotten the assistance that they need? They will pay back to the 
system many times over, I promise you.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin).

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, as mentioned, this would be the 10th 
extension. And everyone has the right to ask, why another extension, 
instead of our buckling down and being able to pass a welfare reform 
bill.
  There is an effort, I think, to blame the Senate. I do not think we 
forget who controls the Senate. But let us forget about that. Because I 
think the main problem is the approach of the House majority, and when 
it comes to this as has been true of so many other programs, it is 
their way or no way. And so far when it comes to further work on 
welfare reform, it has been no way.
  Now, that may be better, and I think it is, than what they have 
proposed here; but still we should be able to, as I said, buckle down 
and tackle this issue. We have not done so.
  There has been zero effort by the Republican majority in this House 
to sit down with Democrats and see where we go from here. Zero.
  There has been success under welfare reform as we passed some years 
ago. There have been some successes. The rolls have been cut in half 
and the majority of those who are leaving welfare have worked since 
they left. And two-thirds now of the people receiving welfare or TANF 
are engaged in work. But the problem is that so many of them are not 
moving up the economic ladder.
  These are the government figures: 60 to 70 percent of those who have 
moved from welfare to work, 60 to 70 percent are essentially earning at 
the poverty level or worse. In contrast, those who leave welfare and 
move into higher starting wages were 40 percent more likely to be 
working 2 years later, and those receiving child care assistance, the 
same way.
  So some years ago we worked, President Clinton proposed it, there was 
passage by the House and Senate. He vetoed it twice because there was 
inadequate child care, inadequate health care. The Congress, with a 
number of us working on it, paid attention to those and it passed on a 
bipartisan basis. But there is no effort to move to another stage of 
welfare reform, and that is to make sure that it is structured so that 
people can move off welfare into jobs that do not lead them into 
poverty.
  Instead, the Republican majority here has proposed not moving people 
off welfare into work that takes them out of poverty, but emphasizing 
or talking only really about those who are on welfare and moving into 
work regardless of the consequences. And we in the minority here have 
proposed bills that would continue State flexibility which would be 
taken away by the majority here and would reward States if they moved 
people off welfare into good-paying jobs. They would take care of the 
technical problems with health care, transitional Medicaid and also 
would restore full funding to the Social Services block grant.
  So in a word, I say to the chairman of the subcommittee, instead of 
simply extending this bill because you are unwilling to sit down on a 
bipartisan basis and work on further important welfare reform, I urge 
you to instead of just kind of stonewalling, sit down with us and see 
if we cannot do still better.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, it really speaks volumes that there is no one who wants 
to come out here and talk about what happens to ordinary people here in 
this country.
  The last election was one in which people said the issue was whether 
people had values or not. The values that the Democrats have stood for 
for 70 years, really since the Depression, were a minimum income for 
everyone.
  Now, let us start with the minimum wage. We have not raised the 
minimum wage in this House since 1997. We raised our own salary 
yesterday 2 percent or whatever it was. I do not know. But the people 
at the bottom have not had an increase since 1997.
  We take a young woman who has got a kid and got out of high school 
and did

[[Page 14776]]

not graduate, and we send her out and say, go get a job, go get a job; 
and she gets a job at minimum wage which amounts to about 50 percent of 
the poverty level. That is not a value that I support.
  Housing is another value that we should be talking about. These 
people are struggling to find a place to live in the city close to 
their job. In Seattle you cannot find very many places inside the city. 
As we gentrify the centers of the city, the people have to move out 
farther and farther and farther to the point where the bus lines 
require a couple of hours to get into the city to work at a minimum-
wage job.
  Health care, another value. There should not have to be a colloquy 
over here about whether we are going to provide health care for these 
people. We know that we need a workforce that is healthy. We need 
people going to work who are healthy, and we need children who are 
healthy who can go to school and learn and become part of an educated 
workforce. To fail these children in their earliest years is to present 
ourselves with a problem. Maybe not us, because we will not be here 
when the kids who are on welfare today become a problem for the 
Congress, but 20 years from now people are going to say, why did we not 
have health care?
  The reason we wound up with a school lunch program in this country 
was because when they went to drafting people in the Second World War, 
they had so many recruits that had nutrition-related diseases that they 
had to reject them. And so, Mr. Truman, it was not some big-hearted 
thing, he started the school lunch program so that we would have 
healthy kids. And yet we are still questioning whether these 
youngsters, we are putting the pressure on the States to make cuts in 
welfare in every single jurisdiction.
  The chorus of hollering is going to start when these bills start 
passing and State governments have to deal with what we have put out 
there as an insurmountable problem for them, a mandate from us that 
they have to find the money for.
  Finally, education of kids. That is a value. You want kids to have an 
education. You want parents to have an education. Kids follow the model 
of their own parents. If we do not help these people on welfare get an 
education, if we make it an insurmountable task, the kids do not see 
their own mother or own father get an education.
  My belief is we can do better than this, and I hope when we pass a 
permanent bill we will.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in 2002 and 2003 this House passed long-term 
reauthorization legislation to encourage more work among welfare 
recipients and to provide more resources for States to assist low-
income families. And I have heard several on the other side, my good 
friend from Washington, talk about values, talk about Democrat values, 
Republican values. He spoke about the amount of funding.
  Let me just mention that under the Democrat values of the programs 
that we had twice as many who were on welfare than were on welfare 
today because caseloads were cut in half during our current legislation 
while Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, TANF, funds were fixed 
and child care funds grew, Federal funds per TANF families more than 
doubled. As a matter of fact, in 1996 the average family under the old 
Democrat plan had $6,934 average approximate per family. In 2004 these 
same families had $16,185 because the program was block granted, and it 
was an equal amount of funding coming in and it was not reduced.
  This, Mr. Speaker, would be the 10th extension of these programs 
since 2002. However, I believe this process of continued extensions of 
welfare programs is finally nearing an end. I expect that the House 
will soon act on and pass comprehensive welfare reform legislation as 
part of the budget reconciliation process. But until that happens, it 
is important that we continue these programs and we do need to pass 
this bill today. Therefore, I urge all of my colleagues to support this 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Latham). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) that the House 
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3021, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________