Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the First District and would like to pause at this time, Mr. Speaker, to really commend my new colleague for stepping into the people's House and doing the people's work, and again, I would just simply pause at this juncture, knowing that some of the atmospherics that are at work today, I would just, Mr. Speaker, ask my colleagues to stop and think about the legislation at hand and what other tactics may come into play that could be counterproductive and hurt the very people so many in this Chamber come to champion.

It was my privilege to originally sponsor this legislation in the 107th Congress, and it is my honor to cosponsor this bill with my good friend and colleague from the First District, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi).

This legislation ratifies the settlement concerning the Zuni Indian tribe's water rights on the Little Colorado River in eastern Arizona. The bill will provide for a wetlands restoration at Zuni Heaven, an area of land along the Colorado River that is sacred to the Zuni tribe of New Mexico. Consistent with the principles of tribunal sovereignty, Indian self-determination and religious freedom, this legislation will settle ancient water rights and ensure that those rights are preserved for all future generations of the Zuni people.

The Zuni tribe's water claim is no new development. In fact, litigation of the water rights on the Little Colorado River Basin has been ongoing for nearly a quarter of a century now. This legislation represents a culmination of this process in a way that will reduce expenses for all parties involved. Indeed, we should look at this settlement process demonstrated in this particular case as a model for other settlements.

The affected parties have recognized that final resolution of these water claims through litigation is counterproductive and hurtful to the tribe, neighboring non-Indian water users, local towns, utility and irrigation companies, the State of Arizona and, ultimately, Mr. Speaker, to the United States. Therefore, negotiations have brought forward a settlement agreed to by all parties; and we now, Mr. Speaker, in the people's House have the opportunity to codify this settlement with passage of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the merit of this legislation speaks for itself. Again, I commend my colleague, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi), for bringing this bill forward in such an expeditious manner, making it one of his top priorities, bringing it to the floor today.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to end on a hopeful note, that while other atmospherics may be at work in this Chamber, this is a chance to strike a blow for common sense, for Native American self-determination and for something

that is vital to the people of Arizona and New Mexico.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the committee for yielding me this time, and I thank my colleagues on the left for their warm reception tonight. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, maybe so far left they will come back to the right, but they will never be correct.

It is an interesting situation, Mr. Speaker. One is tempted to ask, who is jobbing whom? Because with a fanciful flight of rhetoric, mixed with an equal portion of scold, my good friend from Michigan fails to capture the essence of what is at stake here, and it is a lesson that is essentially nonpartisan. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, one of our leading news weeklies, on its cover, asserted just the other day ``They Don't ``make Democrats Like They Used to.'' And that is true.

Forty years ago, Jack Kennedy said a rising tide lifts all boats. He said by reducing marginal tax rates, you actually increase revenues to the government because you get the economy working and you put people to work. Ronald Reagan proved that again 20 years ago. And, indeed, just a short time ago, in 2001, we cushioned the horrible blow of a recession that started and was compounded by the attacks of 9/11. Yet much more remains to be done.

While some subject us to the poison of class warfare, we embrace the promise of economic opportunity, because we believe a rising tide does lift all boats. And even at this hour, with the disappointment and frustration born of a long and strange trip by our friends in the minority, we still extend our hand.

Join us in this opportunity. Increase jobs and economic growth. And even if you believe in the power of government, there will be more revenues eventually to the government, and we will succeed. Vote ``yes'' on jobs and growth. Vote ``yes'' on tax relief. Join us in this great enterprise for the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington State for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and in support of the underlying legislation, and I appreciate the passion that my friend from Oregon brings to this debate because I am trying very hard now to control very real emotion on my side. From my perspective, having represented rural Arizona in the Congress of the United States, having had the Rodeo-Chedeski fire burn hundreds of thousands of acres, Mr. Speaker, I bring to the floor a photo that is worth a thousand words of verbiage because it tells the tale of what transpired in the White Mountains of Arizona in the wake of the Rodeo-Chedeski fire, and it tells the story compellingly.

The area in the upper part of this photograph was treated. Effective forest management was utilized. The untreated area, there were delays through appeals and paralysis by analysis; and the Members see what happened.

I listened with interest to my friend from Florida who in curious fashion said we do not have to worry about trees if there are no trees there. I do not know what rhetorical point he was trying to make, but the fact is Members of this Congress, including 16 of my friends on the other side of the aisle, have signed on to this Healthy Forest Initiative because we have to get something done, precisely because of the concerns of my friend from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) who preceded me here in the well, precisely because of the damage that is done to communities and to people who live in those communities and, yes, to endangered species.

Do my colleagues realize the Rodeo-Chedeski fire, we had air pollution caused by particulates that far exceeds what goes on in the rush hour in the metropolitan area of Phoenix? Do my colleagues realize that, in fact, the water pollution and the damage to watersheds and the ability of people in those areas to have healthy drinking water is taken away because of the fire?

Mr. Speaker, the fact is we are coming here. When we strip away all the histionics and all the theatrics and all the arguments about process, at the end of the day we are faced with this question: Will the House of Representatives, will this People's House, embrace an effective healthy forest initiative that is broad-based, that will preserve endangered species, that will preserve the integrity of watersheds, that will preserve air quality if we take these steps now? Because, make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, in the words of Professor Wallace Covington in Northern Arizona University, a widely respected forest health expert, the question is not if there will be another wildfire but when.

Do we continue through theatrics and delay to subject the people of rural America to the threat of catastrophic wildfire?

This is too important to leave to politics as usual. Rise in support of the rule, support the base bill, and reject any amendment that would try to restrict this to certain geographic areas.

I thank my colleagues for their time.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, the fact is what happened in that last fire eliminated 100,000 acres of habitat to the Mexican spotted owl. So I would suggest to my friend, rather than any misguided notion on the motives on this side, I am actually working to protect the forests, and I thank him for his concern.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Virginia, for yielding time to me.

Mr. Speaker, my friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), offered a rather imperfect analogy when he talked about someone selling their kidney to deal with financial problems.

No, Mr. Speaker, the problem is not the analogy to a kidney, and the problem is not with cutting the heart out of environmental regulation. The problem we are confronting, Mr. Speaker, is that we have cut the very heart out of rural communities in the western United States who live surrounded by national forests.

In Arizona, in the Rodeo-Chedeski fire of last summer, nearly a half million acres and over 400 homes were destroyed. If there is a silver lining to the pyrocumulous clouds, it is the very real human tragedy; not an abstraction, not a governmental study.

But we have had paralysis by analysis. The Forest Service has spent a quarter of a trillion dollars of their time and their financial resources to say, stop these projects because of lawsuits. What we ask for is what is reasonable, what is reasonable at long last, to have a true, balanced policy. This is an important first step. Support the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, today in the heart of Arizona's Fifth Congressional District in Tempe, graduation exercises at Arizona State University, commencement day, will soon commence. And, Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of this House the endeavors of one who will be recognized and who will don the cap and gown today, even as we send congratulations to all who realize academic achievement on this day at Arizona State. His name is Chris Newton, and today as he puts on his cap and gown, he will take a significant step forward not only for himself, but also for the Pappas School for Homeless Children in Phoenix.

Mr. Speaker, Chris Newton spent the bulk of his young life as a homeless child. And while many different communities offer many different solutions, and, sadly, some here in Washington and others move to cut off the notion of schools for homeless children, this particular institution in Phoenix has done a lot to help a lot of children. But Chris Newton typifies the success.

Chris Newton was not only the first student from Pappas School for the Homeless to go to college, he now becomes the first Pappas student to graduate from college. Chris is no stranger to academic excellence, even as he dealt with the challenges of homelessness. He was the eighth grade valedictorian at Pappas School. He continued his education at Camelback High School and then stepped onto the campus at Tempe.

While debate rages among theoreticians and bureaucrats here in Washington as to the relevance of maintaining, or the alleged stigma of homeless children congregating and gathering together for education, dealing with those challenging needs, Chris offers an affirmation for what has worked for him and others in Arizona. He is quoted in the Arizona Republic in an article that chronicles the challenges he has confronted and the success he has reached: ``School is always there. You can always count on it. That is 8 hours a day. Your worries are gone. You think about what you are going to do in class, when recess is, things you will do with friends after school.''

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the Pappas School for Homeless Children in Arizona is literally an oasis of stability on the desert for these challenged students. It was reaffirmed in the life of

Chris Newton, and it continues for so many others today.

We received much information about Chris and his undertakings. Ernalee Phelps, who is the director of resources development at the Pappas School, spoke glowingly of Mr. Newton. She writes, ``He could have blamed the world for his problems or chose another way by turning into another generation of homelessness, but through the giving of others and the Pappas Scholarship Foundation he was given the chance to succeed. Having said that, we recognize that to receive a scholarship is one thing, but to honor it and treasure it is another. He had to follow through with attending and keeping up with the classes. He could have given up at any time but he didn't. Sometimes society makes it easier for individuals who have already struggled with homelessness to fail.'' The sad fact is some will fail, but ``Chris knew that it takes determination to succeed.''

Mrs. Phelps continues, ``I have had the honor to know this young man for 7 years now. Chris never gave up, got angry, blamed anyone or asked me for a handout. He is always friendly, courteous and respectful. If Chris were my own son, I could not be more proud of him.''

Chris says, quoting Mr. Newton now, ``I tell kids you have to be open-minded. There are always obstacles, but do not let them stop you. I know people have set high expectations for me, and I never wanted to disappoint them.''

Mr. Speaker, Chris Newton is not disappointing. He is achieving. Congratulations to Chris Newton, today a graduate of Arizona State University and an alumnus of the Pappas School for Homeless Children.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, the chairman of the full committee, for his work on this legislation and would urge my colleagues to adopt it.

Let me start with a point of agreement with the preceding speaker in the well, my good friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka). Jobs, jobs, and more jobs. That is precisely what this legislation is about, to offer economic opportunities, to create new jobs. We can do that. And, indeed, I would commend to my friend a bill we passed a couple of years ago where we reduced the top rate on capital gains taxation, where we offered primary residential exemption. What did we do for our friends in construction, in the building trades? We put people to work. People were buying homes. People had more of their money to save, spend, and invest. And rather than the notion of economic passive visit, and rather than the notion of greed, quite the contrary has been true.

When the American people have more of their own money, it helps Main Street. It helps Wall Street. Mr. Speaker, it helps your street, because people have money to spend. New jobs will be created. The chairman pointed out the findings. We know it has worked. It has worked time and again so it will work in this instance.

Support this legislation precisely because we want to create jobs. Support this legislation precisely because we want to promote economic growth.

Now on a sad note of discord, this Chamber has been compared to many different settings. It is sad that some on the left want to compare this to the Grand Old Opry because in the words of that great country ballad, that is their story and they are sticking to it, that somehow this only helps the rich.

Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, we are talking about real money staying in the pockets of real families. We are talking about accelerating the per child tax credit to $1,000 this year. We are talking about eliminating the marriage penalty this year. We are talking about moving forward this year to help our economy grow, to create jobs, and to get it done now rather than hesitating, rather than waiting, rather than remaining in the economic doldrums. Support the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Arizona who is proving to represent so capably the new first congressional district and thank him again for his management of this legislation. I also thank the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega) for his remarks on this legislation, pointing out the history of what has transpired here and the challenge that at long last we will redress in this Chamber today.

Mr. Speaker, it bears repeating that S. 162 provides for the distribution of certain funds awarded to the Gila River Pima-Maricopa Indian community.

This bill is the Senate companion version to the legislation that I introduced, that my colleague from the First District of Arizona alluded to, the companion legislation designated as H.R. 458. Since this legislation has already been approved by the other body, I am grateful to the leadership of this House and to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for taking up the bill from the other body in such an expeditious manner.

Mr. Speaker, it was my honor to represent the Gila River Indian community in the Congress of the United States for my first 8 years of service in this institution. And although redistricting in my home State has shifted the boundaries of the Congressional District I now represent, I continue to enjoy a very productive working relationship with and on behalf of the Gila River community.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to support this very important legislation. My friend from American Samoa cited dates, and let us understand what is at stake here in this Chamber this afternoon. An agreement of some was decided upon in 1951. Mr. Speaker, to put this in perspective, that is some 7 years before the date of my birth. Over a half century has passed, and we need to get this done. Fifty years of litigation and consultation between the Gila River Tribe and the government of the United States now, today. We say from time to time that this is a deliberative body. Mr. Speaker, I daresay those of us on both sides of the aisle welcome the fact that this deliberation will at long last draw to a close.

Mr. Speaker, this points out a challenge we have faced time and again with the first Americans, because in too many instances, our government has come up short in its stewardship of Native American monies. The Gila River community has faced considerable delays in dealing with the Office of Trust Funds Management and the Bureau of Indian Affairs in finalizing the distribution plan. Members of the Gila River Indian community, in fact,

have waited an additional half a decade for final resolution of these legal claims and for distribution of these judgment funds to eligible tribal members.

Mr. Speaker, the dominant media culture in this town, so fond of playing up differences that may exist among us, may little note nor long remember what transpires with this legislation today. But it is very profound, because it lifts a burden of uncertainty from members of the Gila River community.

The time is now for Congress to pass this legislation so that the community members' judgment funds may finally, finally be released to them. This is a chance where we come together as men and women of goodwill, as constitutional officers, to do the right thing for the right reasons, even though the timing has been somewhat delayed.

Mr. Speaker, I therefore urge my colleagues once again to support this important legislation, and once again thanking my friend from American Samoa and my new colleague from the First District of Arizona.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I always appreciate the chance to come to the well of the House.

I listened with interest to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey). What passes for wit in the early morning on the east coast of the United States, and I know perhaps given the deliberations some are giddy, but I would just remind us that rhetorical flourishes about Saddam eating homework or Osama eating homework are not funny; they are tragic. Mr. Speaker, we are a Nation at war, we are a Nation at war, and to have this type of disrespect brought into this debate speaks volumes on the nature of the opposition this evening.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 108) to amend the Education Land Grant Act to require the Secretary of Agriculture to pay the costs of environmental reviews with respect to conveyances under that Act.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 108, which amends the Education Land Grant Act to require the Secretary of Agriculture to pay the costs of environmental reviews, is an important piece of legislation for many schools, many school districts, but most of all for many students across the United States of America.

Currently the new Education Land Grant Act enacted in the 106th Congress allows the Forest Service to convey up to 80 acres of its land to school districts to renovate, expand, or construct school facilities. The act requires that land conveyed is identified for disposal in the particular forest's plan and that the conveyance cost of the survey is borne by the applicant. The Forest Service has determined this cost to be $10 per acre.

However, both conveyance of land under this act and the forest plan amendment require an environmental analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act known as NEPA. Presently the Education Land Grant Act and the interim Forest Service manual fail to indicate who bears the cost of the environmental analysis.

Madam Speaker, this is the crucial point today. In implementing this law, the Forest Service staff has administratively determined that schools that apply for a conveyance under this act would need to pay for various administrative costs, analyses, and environmental compliance assessment. In fact, Madam Speaker, the interim directive that has now finally been distributed states various costs to be borne by school districts, and, I quote now, ``Nominal costs includes the nominal fee of $10 per acre conveyed, plus all costs directly associated with the project that the Forest Service may incur to evaluate and process a school district's request to acquire National Forest Service lands under ELGA, such as, costs associated with National Environmental Policy Act compliance, document preparation, surveys, posting of property monuments, markers, or posts, and recordation.''

In fact, another memo mentioned that even staff time, that even staff time used to process requests will need to be paid by school districts.

Madam Speaker, my colleagues, what we have here is a disconnection. In the 106th Congress this body passed the new Education Land Grant Act unanimously. The other body did likewise. It was signed into law by President Clinton in his final days of office. Here we have a textbook example of elected officials, constitutional officers, doing their job. As the author of the new Education Land Grant Act, it was never my intent for a governmental bureaucracy to determine administratively that they were going to charge the rural school districts of America for their staff time. Indeed, Madam Speaker, if I am not mistaken, anyone in the employment of the United States Government serves the people, and here we have an administrative directive saying we are going to charge school district X staff time for Federal workers to work on this. This is a disconnection between the intent of Congress, the assent of the executive branch, and the execution by a bureaucracy.

Madam Speaker, the costs associated with the conveyance under ELGA are truly minimal to the Forest Service, a drop in the bucket for that agency. Here is the problem: Those same costs can prove absolutely prohibitive to school districts seeking to expand their facility. Indeed, Madam Speaker, the intent of the legislation was to offer this land at minimal costs to school districts, and our studies have borne out that in 44 of our 50 States this will have a positive impact primarily for rural districts, but the entire intent of the legislation was to allow those rural districts to focus their financial resources where they are best used, helping teachers teach and helping children learn, not to be caught up in a bureaucratic morass that would prove to be prohibitive to those districts.

So this particular piece of legislation, Madam Speaker, H.R. 108, will require the Forest Service to accept the full cost of the environmental analysis required by NEPA for these small land conveyances. This would free local school districts from burdensome administrative costs, allow them to spend funds again on what is most important, what goes on in the classroom for their students.

The Education Land Grant Act was initially passed by this Congress for the purpose of aiding local school districts. This legislation will simply direct the Forest Service to pay for any environmental analysis costs, allowing the Act to achieve its original intent of improving communities and benefiting school children across the United States.

Madam Speaker, I would ask my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen) for her favorable comments.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 622, the Coconino and Tonto National Forests Land Exchange Act authorizes, directs and expedites two land exchanges in the Coconino and Tonto National Forests in Arizona: the Montezuma Castle/Payson Airport Land Exchange and the Diamond Point Land Exchange.

Through this land exchange, the Town of Payson will receive land adjacent to its airport that will be used for expansion and economic development activities. This is particularly valuable to Payson because the Town is totally surrounded by national forest lands, virtually land-locking the community. Local officials feel that the lack of land for industry and low-cost housing is the major obstacle to economic development in the region.

These two exchanges have been pending for 6 or 7 years, with no conclusion anywhere in sight. The administrative process unfortunately broke down, leaving the Town of Payson and the homeowners of the Diamond Point Summer Homes Association with no other alternative than a legislated exchange. What's more, the exchanges are supported by the Forest Service and are already a part of the Tonto National Forest Plan.

This is common-sense legislation that accomplishes goals that even the Forest Service has stated are a priority. These land exchanges are endorsed by the Gila County Board of Supervisors, the Rim County Regional Chamber of Commerce, the Town of Payson, the Payson Regional Economic Development Corporation, and the National Park Service, among others.

I commend the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Renzi, for making this legislation a priority, and for bringing it to the floor so quickly.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for yielding me time, and I appreciate and applaud the remarks of my friend from Maine (Mr. Allen) across the aisle because it typifies, at long last, we actually had discussion on the bill we are working on this afternoon and the benefits it brings, rather than another convoluted process.

So let us focus on the legislation at hand, H.R. 743. The preceding speaker pointed out how it would directly help one of his constituents.

Mr. Speaker, let me suggest to you that this legislation will help thousands, if not millions, of Social Security recipients because it protects Social Security. First and foremost, we strengthen the ability of this government and the Social Security Administration to deny benefits to fugitive felons and probation or parole violators. We have such a huge system which so many Americans depend on that it is hard to believe, but true, there are actually felons and fugitives who have depended on Social Security and taken money out of the system. That is wrong. That is going to stop.

It deters fraud. It creates new civil monetary penalties for those who would commit fraud against our seniors and against Social Security recipients. It prevents persons from misrepresenting themselves as they provide Social Security-related services. We move to protect what so many Americans depend upon.

And I should also point out that one key group of constituents whom I was

honored to work with, with the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, came to Arizona, to Tempe, Arizona, to issue our first ticket to work for a disabled member of our society who wanted to emphasize the ability in disability, we broaden and strengthen the ability with ticket to work. We help individuals with disabilities gain access to representation and to get back to work. We expand the eligibility for the work opportunity tax credits. Employers outside of a predesignated number in the past can take advantage of the work opportunity tax credit. It allows the Social Security Administration to examine alternative methods of encouraging work.

This is a good bill. Pass it on the merits. Support H.R. 743.

Mr. Speaker, let me also, at the outset, begin with a personal note: how pleased I am to have my neighbor from Nevada here managing this legislation on the floor of the House, the first such opportunity he has had. I predict he will have many more opportunities to serve his home State of Nevada and this Nation with great distinction.

Let me also take time at the outset to thank my friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), on the other side of the aisle for his support of this resolution, House Resolution 113, a resolution that recognizes the scope of child abuse and neglect and declares support for efforts to raise public awareness of this tragic problem.

Mr. Speaker, in many ways this House Chamber becomes America's town hall. We are able to focus the collective attention of our Nation on vital concerns of the day. While war rages around the globe, while our men and women in harm's way are doing their best to liberate another nation, it is worth noting that here at home we have serious problems; and, indeed, these problems extend to the youngest among us.

Mr. Speaker, homicide is the only major cause of childhood death that has increased over the last 30 years. Think about that for just a minute. In the last 3 decades, while we have made such tremendous strides against childhood disease, a cause of death so brutal as the premeditated taking of another's life continues to be on the rise among our youngest. Mr. Speaker, the tragic fact is, murders of children 5 years old and younger are most often committed by family members through beatings or suffocation.

While we welcome the strides my friend, the gentleman from Illinois, talked about in his home State, Mr. Speaker, I am compelled to come to the floor and talk about the challenges my home State of Arizona confronts. An average of 89 reports of alleged child abuse and neglect are made to Arizona's Child Protective Services each day. Of the over 17,000 reports of alleged maltreatment received from April 1 of 2002 to September 30 of that same year, 60 percent alleged neglect, 32 percent physical abuse, 6 percent sexual abuse, and 2 percent emotional abuse.

My friend, the gentleman from Illinois, touched on it earlier; but it bears repeating: sadly, parents who abuse all too often raise children who become abusers when they become parents. Maltreated children are at a higher risk of arrest at a younger age, with more significant and repeated criminal involvement. They can be expected to commit nearly twice as many crimes as children raised in a healthier environment.

We come to this floor today to recognize this social ill, but to go beyond that, not only to draw the scrutiny of our Nation, Mr. Speaker, to this problem, not only to talk about the width and breadth of the challenge we confront, that approximately 3 million cases of suspected or known child abuse and neglect involving 5 million American children are made each year, but also the sobering speculation and belief among many who study this problem that the actual incidence of abuse and neglect is estimated to be three times greater than the number actually reported to authorities. Mr. Speaker, we move beyond mere statistics to the very real human equation of the desperation confronted by the youngest among us.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, this resolution expresses the sense of Congress that all Americans should keep victims of child abuse and neglect in their thoughts and prayers and urges the faith community, nonprofit organizations, and individual volunteers to recommit and mobilize their resources to assist the victims.

Mr. Speaker, we might also make a personal appeal to those parents who, for reasons of rage or helplessness or, sadly, convenience, reach out almost

reflexively to strike a child. Mr. Speaker, in this place at this time we would ask those parents and those adults to stop and think. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, this resolution urges Americans to seek to break the cycle of child abuse and neglect and to give these victimized children hope for the future.

As was noted earlier, the upcoming month of April is distinguished as Child Abuse Prevention Month. The nonprofit organization Childhelp USA, which I am honored by the fact that it is headquartered in the Fifth Congressional District of Arizona, has initiated the National Day of Hope to focus public awareness of child abuse and neglect. As my colleagues mentioned earlier, this year National Day of Hope is scheduled for Wednesday, April 2.

This resolution also commends Childhelp USA for its efforts on behalf of children and its embracing of the goals of the National Day of Hope.

Lost among all the platitudes about children representing our future is this stunning fact that we cannot ignore: millions of American children are abused and neglected each year. This brutal behavior is so devastating that not only those children, but also our society, are victimized.

The challenge we confront demands the attention and compassionate action of every American. That is why I would urge Members' support for this resolution today.

Mr. Speaker, I would join my colleague from New York in the heartfelt prayer that those who have been sent into harm's way will return safely and successfully following the liberation of Iraq, and, Mr. Speaker, I would make this point today as we gather in the people's House.

Honest differences and reasoned dissent are welcome, but no one in camouflage today in the deserts of Kuwait or Iraq recognize bipartisan affiliation, and to those who would come to the floor to attempt to score partisan points in the midst of conflict, I would suggest that mission is sorely mistaken.

We stand as one today, as Americans behind those in military service. We pray for their success, we pray for our Nation, and we pray that, the war is a brutal and nasty business, we hope this war will truly lend and lead to a lasting peace.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of the Social Security Protection Act of 2003.

Now, the gentleman who preceded me in the well, the gentleman from California, spoke of the initiatives this committee and this House adopted to crack down on fraud and abuse, specifically the abuse of Social Security payments going to convicted felons. We have a chance now to expand that, to deny fugitive felons and payroll violators from receiving Social Security benefits and help individuals with disabilities.

This is the key thing for me, my colleagues, because so many folks in the Fifth Congressional District of Arizona have come to me to extol the virtues of something this Congress did back in 1999, as we put people back to work with our Ticket to Work incentives that year. And while we have granted tickets to work across the country to emphasize the ability in disability and put people back to work, an important piece of clarifying language is in this provision. It clarifies that the Work Opportunity Tax Credit would be available to employers who hire a disabled beneficiary who is referred from any employment network, not just the State rehabilitation agency.

So we actually expand the pool of people who can go to work and add further incentives in our Ticket to Work. So, on one hand, if we are talking about Social Security protection, we move to bar those who would take advantage of fraud and abuse. We crack down there. And yet for the most deserving among us, people who genuinely want to get back in the workforce, who have been met with limitations heretofore, we expand their opportunities to find work. We expand the opportunities for those who are willing to put them to work.

It creates the type of balance necessary. It is the ideal type of perfecting and expanding legislation that is meant when we say we step up to protect this vital program. It shows reasoned balance and perfection in what is all too often an imperfect world as we strive to further strengthen and protect and perfect our process of Social Security.

If nothing else were there but this expansion of the Work Opportunity Tax Credit and the Ticket to Work Program, I would stand in favor of this bill. But it does so much more. I would invite all of my friends in the House to join us in supporting this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from California for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the substitute offered by my friend from Maryland (Mr. Cardin). It may be well intentioned, but it fails to embrace a couple of realities and perhaps this is the fundamental difference among friends.

Mr. Chairman, success in welfare reform means reducing the number of people who seek welfare, people who actually go to work. There is news to celebrate according to our own Department of Labor, Mr. Chairman. The job market in the United States, despite the challenges we face now, which we all admit we have, from July of 1996 when we first passed this to last month, January of 2003, according to our own Department of Labor, the workforce has added 11 million jobs.

Unemployment is a real concern. We all understand that. But actually, unemployment was reduced from when we passed this measure in the last Congress, in April of 2002.

Now, understand the welfare rolls are reducing. We have held constant the

dollars that are going to the States. It is a net increase. No one doubts that there are fiscal challenges facing the States. But, Mr. Chairman, the fact is, the States as laboratories of democracy must fashion their own solutions, not flexibilities in the form of pseudo- mandates from the Hill, but reasonable, rational solutions based on the work that is fundamental and inherent in this act, that rewards work, that provides funding for child care, that instead of cursing the darkness, lights a candle of opportunity for so many families.

That is what makes this reform historic. That is why we should reject the Cardin substitute and support H.R. 4.