Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 1 p.m. on Wednesday, February 26; and that when the House adjourns on Wednesday, it adjourn to meet at 1 p.m. on Thursday, February 27, 2003.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, it is an honor for me to be here today to speak on behalf of the reauthorization of welfare reform. I worked on welfare reform in the South Carolina State senate 7 years ago. I heard the same arguments, that it would not work; and we were able in South Carolina to enact welfare reform, and exactly like the Republican Congress in 1996, reduce the caseload, provide jobs for people, provide training, the child care and the health care. It was the greatest experience, and it has been the most exciting activity. I agree with the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), it is the most exciting activity that I have participated in in legislation.

Additionally, there has been some question as to whether we have had sufficient meetings. Last year I was very fortunate thanks to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) to be working on this issue. We met dozens of times. It was all very positive. And the effect has been, as the Savannah Morning News and the Carolina Morning News have reported, that welfare reform has been the most successful social program in the last 50 years. So I am excited to be here. It speaks for itself, and I urge a positive vote today on reauthorization.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of H.R. 4 and opposed to the Kucinich substitute.

Specifically, what I am concerned about in the substitute is that it would undermine the current reduction of dependence that we have achieved through welfare reform. Welfare reform has been a phenomenal success beginning in 1996 and has resulted in great opportunities, jobs created, education, training for people. And in particular, in the most recent report by Dr. Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation, he indicates that the decrease in poverty has been greatest among black children. The poverty rate for black children has fallen to the lowest point in U.S. history. There are 1.2 million fewer black children in poverty today than there were in the mid-1990s.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out who made it possible. It was not we as Members of Congress. I have visited the DSS offices throughout the district that I represent. I have visited the social workers who have made a difference in people's lives, and I have thanked them. I have been to every office to thank them for the difference they have made helping people get jobs and create great new opportunities.

The article referencing the aforementioned report is as follows:

[From the Heritage Foundation Backgrounder, Feb. 6, 2003]

The Continuing Good News About Welfare Reform

(By Robert Rector and Patrick F. Fagan)

Six years ago, President Bill Clinton signed legislation

overhauling part of the nation's welfare system. The Personal

Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of

1996 (P.L. 104-193) replaced the failed Aid to Families with

Dependent Children (AFDC) program with a new program called

Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). The reform

legislation had three goals: (1) to reduce welfare dependence

and increase employment; (2) to reduce child poverty; and (3)

to reduce illegitimacy and strengthen marriage.

At the time of its enactment, liberal groups passionately

denounced the bill, predicting that it would result in

substantial increases in poverty, hunger, and other social

ills. Contrary to these alarming forecasts, welfare reform

has been effective in meeting each of its goals.

Poverty has dropped substantially. Although liberals

predicted that welfare reform would push an additional 2.6

million persons into poverty, 3.5 million fewer people live

in poverty today than in 1995, according to Census Bureau

figures.

Some 2.9 million fewer children live in poverty today than

in 1995.

Decreases in poverty have been greatest among black

children. In fact, the poverty rate for black children has

fallen to the lowest point in U.S. history. There are 1.2

million fewer black children in poverty today than there were

in the mid-1990s.

The poverty rate of children living with single mothers is

at the lowest point in U.S. history, having fallen

substantially since the onset of welfare reform.

The poverty rate of black children and children in single-

mothers families has continued to fall even during the

current recession. Historically, poverty among these groups

has risen sharply during recessions; the continuing decline

of child poverty among black and single-mother families is an

unprecedented departure from past poverty trends.

Hunger among children has been cut roughly in half.

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, in 1995,

before welfare reform was enacted, 1.3 percent of children

experienced hunger; by 2001, the number had fallen to 0.6

percent.

The AFDC/TANF caseload has been more than cut in half. The

decreases in welfare have been greatest among disadvantaged

groups with the greatest propensity for long-term

intergenerational dependence: for example, younger never-

married mothers with young children.

Employment of single mothers has increased greatly. The

largest increases in employment have been among the most

disadvantaged mothers with the greatest barriers to obtaining

work. Employment of young single mothers (ages 18 to 24) has

nearly doubled. Employment of single mothers who are high-

school dropouts has risen by two-thirds.

The explosive growth of out-of-wedlock childbearing has

come to a virtual halt. Since the beginning of the War on

Poverty, the share of births that are outside marriage had

increased relentlessly at nearly one percentage point per

year. Overall, the percentage of births that were out-of-

wedlock rose from 7.7 in 1965 to an astonishing 32.6 percent

in 1994. However, since welfare reform, the growth in

illegitimacy has slowed to a near halt. The out-of-wedlock

birth rate has remained almost flat for the past five years,

and among blacks it has actually dropped.

Marriage has been strengthened. The share of children

living in single-mother families has fallen, and the share

living in married-couple families has increased, especially

among black families.

Some incorrectly attribute these positive trends to the

strong economy in the late 1990s. Although a strong economy

contributed to some of these trends, most of the positive

changes greatly exceed shifts that occurred during prior

economic expansions. The difference is due to welfare reform.

A recent analysis by former Congressional Budget Office

Director June O'Neill finds that welfare reform has been

responsible for three-quarters of the increase in

employment of single mothers and three-quarters of the

drop in welfare caseload. By contrast, good economic

conditions were responsible for only one-quarter of the

changes in these variables. The increase in employment of

single mothers, in turn, is a major factor behind the drop

in child poverty.

The Future of Reform. Notwithstanding this record of

accomplishment, far more needs to be done. When TANF is

reauthorized this year, federal work requirements should be

strengthened to ensure that all able-bodied parents engage in

supervised job search, community service work, or skills

training as a condition of receiving aid. Even more

important, Congress must recognize that the most effective

way to reduce child poverty and increase child well-being is

to increase the number of stable, productive marriages. In

reauthorizing TANF, Congress must greatly strengthen the pro-

marriage aspects of welfare reform.

The 1996 TANF law established the formal goals of reducing

out-of-wedlock childbearing and increasing marriage; but

despite nearly $100 billion in TANF spending over the past

five years, the states have spent virtually nothing on

specific pro-marriage programs. The slowdown in the growth of

illegitimacy and the increases in marriage, noted above, have

occurred as the incidental byproduct of work-related reforms

and not as the result of positive pro-marriage initiatives.

This neglect of marriage by state welfare bureaucracies is

scandalous and deeply injurious to the well-being of

children. Current welfare policy sharply penalizes marriage

between low-income men and women. In future years, welfare's

disincentives to marriage should be significantly reduced. In

addition, at least $300 million per year in future TANF funds

should be earmarked for pro-marriage initiatives.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call for an end to the unfair double taxation on dividend income. President Bush has made it known that it is fundamentally wrong to tax any income twice.

Many would like to play class warfare politics with this issue, but that argument simply does not stand up. Since 1990, stock ownership in the United States has doubled. Today in America more than half of all households own stock and half of all dividend income is owned by seniors. Economists anticipate that the stock market will rise between 10 and 20 percent once this unfair double taxation is eliminated. This creates more capital for spending and investment which leads to job creation.

I thank President Bush and Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan for their leadership on this issue. Also, I want to commend Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, for his outspoken advancement of a more fair tax system. That is why I have introduced H.R. 225, the Double Taxation Elimination Act of 2003. I ask my colleagues to join me in stopping this unfair double taxation on dividend income.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Madam Speaker, as we celebrate the 30th anniversary of the gentleman from Texas' (Mr. Sam Johnson) return from Vietnam after nearly 7 years of brutal captivity, I am confident his courageous example will serve as an inspiration to our pilots preparing for possible attacks against Saddam Hussein.

Congressman Johnson's devotion to his comrades and his country during 2,500 days of captivity should also serve as a reminder to all Americans of the support our servicemen and women deserve before, during, and after war.

Our voluntary Armed Forces are replete with men and women of extraordinary devotion to duty who are willing to following Congressman Sam Johnson's example of steadfast devotion to duty in the face of torturous conditions. We must unite as a Nation in support of our troops as we face a time of great danger to our freedom from terrorists at home and abroad.

Like Congressman Johnson, we can rely on our troops' dedication to protect our way of life. We need to do our duty to ensure that they have the material and moral support they need to accomplish the difficult task ahead.

Congressman Johnson's service demonstrated the highest virtues of patriotism. It is humbling to me as a current member of the South Carolina Army National Guard and a source of pride as I am the father of three sons in the military service who strives to follow Congressman Johnson's historic and heroic example.

We thank Congressman Johnson for his service to our country. It is an honor to know you. It is an honor to have you as chairman of the subcommittee that I serve on in the Committee on Education and the Workforce. God bless you.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend a warm welcome to His Majesty Shaikh Hamad bin Isa Al-Khalifa, King of the Kingdom of Bahrain, on the occasion of his visit to the United States.

The ties between our countries have spanned more than a century, beginning with the establishment of the first American hospital in the region at the turn of the 20th century. When Bahrain became the first Gulf Cooperation Council member to discover oil, it was with the aid of American technology and expertise.

On January 1, 1949, an important alliance began between the United States and Bahrain with the establishment of the Navy's first command in the Middle East--Persian Gulf Area Command. On August 16, 1949, this command was renamed the Middle East Force. This was a vital outpost throughout the cold war and contributed to the success of democracy over communism. The Middle East Force ships were the first United States military units to take action following the August 1990 invasion of Kuwait when they began Maritime Interception Operations in support of United Nations Sanctions against Iraq.

In January 1991, with the beginning of Operation Desert Storm, the Middle East Force was absorbed into United States Naval Forces Central Command, which is responsible for all United States Military activity in the Middle

East and Eastern Africa. Today, United States Naval Forces Central Command and the United States Fifth Fleet consist of as many as 25 ships and 15,000 sailors and Marines.

I commend Bahrain for its demonstrated commitment to both regional and international peace and stability. I recently visited Bahrain with a congressional delegation led by Congressman Darrell Issa, and I found that this cooperative spirit is still evident in the Kingdom's support for U.S. Armed Forces serving in Bahrain.

Since King Hamad assumed the throne in 1999, he has steered Bahrain toward developing a diversified economy and transforming the country into a constitutional monarchy. The amended Constitution of Bahrain reinforces and guarantees the political equality of women and freedom of religion. Municipal elections were revived in May 2002, and a democratically elected parliament was formed in October of the same year. Significantly, women were for the first time active participants in these elections as both voters and candidates.

On the economic front, Bahrain has demonstrated a strong commitment to free trade, privatization, and a free market economy. This is reflected in its membership in the World Trade Organization. Over the past four decades, Bahrain has actively pursued an economic policy based on diversification that has led this country to prosper. Bahrain's success has earned its recognition around the world, and the country has been accorded the rank of freest economy in the Arab world by the Heritage Foundation's 2003 Index of Economic Freedom report, and 16th worldwide.

The success of these economic policies enables Bahrain to boast a variety of industries ranging from petrochemicals, refining, aluminum, and ship repair, to investment banking and international trade. Today, Bahrain is the regional base for various inter- and multinational firms and is the financial hub of the Arab world.

I commend King Hamad and the people of Bahrain for their considerable success, and for their strong support for our men and women in uniform. I look forward to continued strong relations between the United States and Bahrain.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to call attention to an excellent editorial in today's Washington Post, written by the newspaper's editorial staff. They have presented a definitive summary of why we must act to disarm Iraq in preserving the safety of Americans.

The Case for Action

Even before Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's

presentation to the United Nations Security Council today, it

is clear that Iraq has not complied with Resolution 1441,

which offered it a ``final opportunity'' to voluntarily

disarm. Neither the U.N. weapons inspectors nor any permanent

member of the council contends that Iraq has ``fully''

cooperated, as the resolution requires. Barring a dramatic

change of behavior by Saddam Hussein in the coming weeks,

that means a military intervention to disarm Iraq would be

justified, even if the council passed no further resolutions.

Still, there is a larger question that the United States and

its allies must answer, and that underlies the debate that

will begin: Even if it is lawful, is war the right course?

The threshold for deciding on military action must be high,

and there are legitimate questions to answer: Is Iraq

genuinely a threat to U.S. security, and must it be dealt

with now? Given the suffering that every war brings, the

potential economic and political costs, and the likelihood of

unforeseen consequences, would it be better to settle for a

strategy of containing Saddam Hussein through continued U.N.

sanctions and inspections? This would involve abandoning the

tougher course the Security Council approved by a unanimous

vote just 12 weeks ago; but if the Bush administration

endorsed it, much of the country--and the world--would

approve.

Yet we believe that it would be a mistake for the United

States and its allies, confronted with continued

intransigence, to shrink again from decisive action in Iraq.

Unless unexpected change takes place in Baghdad, the United

States should lead a force to remove Saddam Hussein's

dictatorship and locate and destroy its chemical and

biological weapons and its nuclear program. The Iraqi regime

poses a threat not just to the United States but to global

order. The removal of Saddam Hussein would advance the task

of containing the spread of weapons of mass destruction to

rogue states. It also would free millions of Iraqis from

deprivation and oppression and make possible a broader

movement to reshape the Arab Middle East, where political and

economic backwardness have done much to spawn extremists such

as al Qaeda. In contrast, a continued failure to act would

send dictators and terrorists a devastating message about the

impotence of the United States and the United Nations. It

would encourage extremists in their rush for nuclear,

chemical and biological weapons.

That Iraq has the capacity to threaten vital U.S. interests

has been clear at least since 1990, when Saddam Hussein's

army invaded Kuwait, seized its oil fields and stood ready to

move on to Saudi Arabia. Had Saddam Hussein waited the few

months that his scientists then needed to complete a nuclear

weapon, the United States might not have reversed the

invasion; should he acquire them and again seek domination of

the Middle East, the West would face a challenge like that

now posed by North Korea, with far higher stakes. The 1991

Persian Gulf War did not eliminate the Iraqi threat, because

Saddam Hussein and most of his army and arsenal survived; so

the first Bush administration and the Security Council

adopted a strategy of containment. This involved ordering

Iraq to give up chemical, biological and nuclear weapons,

dispatching inspectors to verify that process, and

indefinitely extending sanctions that crippled Iraq's

economy.

Those who advocate containment through inspections ignore

that strategy's costly failure during the 1990s. Inspectors

traipsed through Iraq for seven years as Baghdad defied or

ignored one Security Council resolution after the next. The

most dangerous chemical and biological weapons were not

discovered for four years, and then only with the help of a

defector. After that, Iraq stepped up its concealment

operation, leaving thousands of tons of chemical and

biological materiel and dozens of missiles missing; as

inspector Hans Blix reported last week, they are still

unaccounted for. Meanwhile, the Iraqi people suffered

terribly, even as Saddam Hussein built new palaces. There

were widespread reports of deaths through malnutrition and

lack of medicine, and many Arab extremists, including Osama

bin Laden, reaped political capital by blaming the United

States. Eventually, the Security Council's will to maintain

the containment regime collapsed, and in 1998 Saddam Hussein

was able to drive out the inspectors.

At the time, there was broad consensus about the lessons

and consequences of what had happened. Congress passed, and

President Clinton endorsed, a resolution shifting U.S. policy

in Iraq from containment to regime change. ``In this century,

we learned through harsh experience that the only answer to

aggression and illegal behavior is firmness,'' Mr. Clinton

said while he still occupied the White House. ``If we fall to

respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in his

footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that

they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear

message from the United Nations Security Council.''

Yet Mr. Clinton did fall to respond. Saddam Hussein had

four years to strengthen his arsenal, even as the sanctions

effectively collapsed. According to Mr. Blix and Western

intelligence agencies, he illegally imported hundreds of new

missile engines and rebuilt production facilities. He created

drones and mobile biological laboratories and sought nuclear

material from several nations. Mr. Powell probably will add

more to that indictment today. The Bush administration

promised a tougher response, but only after Sept. 11, 2001,

was it able to summon the will. President Bush, along with

most of Congress and the American public, was driven to

accept the point made by President Clinton: that the United

States, and the world, cannot allow rogue regimes to build

deadly weapons in open defiance of international law and the

United Nations. The fresh documentation of al Qaeda's hunt

for weapons of mass destruction, and the danger that it has

or might acquire such weapons from Saddam Hussein, have only

sharpened that point.

The people of Iraq and its region would benefit from an end

to the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, who is guilty of some of

the most terrible war crimes and human rights violations of

the past 50 years. He has tortured, gassed and slaughtered

his people and has invaded two neighboring nations. The

liberation of Iraq's people would present the United States

and its allies with a difficult and prolonged challenge of

nation-building. If poorly handled--and reports of the

administration's planning so far do not inspire confidence--

the postwar era could inject serious new problems into a

troubled region. But if the goal of preserving a unified Iraq

under the administration of a democratic regime were

achieved, it could give decisive impetus to nascent movements

for reform that exist throughout the Middle East.

In the end, though, a war in Iraq would not be primarily a

humanitarian exercise but an operation essential to American

security. President Bush's move toward action on Iraq has not

been a bolt from the blue or a departure from past U.S.

policy, though the administration's clumsy handling of its

arguments and allies has sometimes made it look that way. Nor

must it be seen as an exercise in Mr. Bush's new doctrine of

preemption, though ideologues on both sides would portray it

as such. Rather, it is the completion of a vital mission of

international security repeatedly confirmed by the U.N.

Security Council, by a Democratic president and by bipartisan

majorities of Congress. War is never to be welcomed. But a

decade of failed diplomacy and containment has brought the

nation and its allies to a point where war may soon be the

only credible option for ending the threat of Saddam Hussein.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the life of Dr. Kalpana Chawla, who died tragically aboard the Space Shuttle Columbia, along with six other crew members. Dr. Chawla was the first Indian-American woman in space, and an inspiration to the world.

Born in Karnal, India, she was the youngest of four children. Determined to achieve her dream of space flight, Kalpana was one of the first women ever to enroll in aeronautical engineering at India's Punjab Engineering College. Later she immigrated to the United States in the 1980's and was educated at the University of Texas and the University of Colorado.

Dr. Chawla joined NASA in 1988 with her first flight into space in 1997, as a mission specialist and prime robotic arm operator. She is symbolic of the growing importance of Indian-Americans to our nation's culture.

I join with my fellow House India Caucus Co-Chair Joseph Crowley, in extending to her family our sincere condolences. The people of the United States owe Dr. Kalpana Chawla a debt of gratitude for her bravery and good work, and join with the people of India in mourning her loss.

Mr. Speaker, today, I am proud to join my colleagues in introducing the Teacher Recruitment and Retention Act of 2003. This bill reflects the commitment of the President and of this Congress to increase the number and enhance the quality of teachers in the nation's classrooms. Most pointedly, the bill expands the current teacher loan forgiveness program from the current $5,000 to a maximum of $17,500 for teachers who commit to teaching math, science, or special education for five years in some of our nation's most disadvantaged schools.

Congress and the Bush Administration have worked hard to improve the educational system and a good deal of our effort has been focused on improvements to the education that disadvantaged students receive. The No Child Left Behind Act calls for states to have a highly qualified teacher in every public school classroom by the end of the 2005-2006 school year. Since we are demanding that our children be instructed by a competent teaching force, we must also do all we can to encourage the best and the brightest to enter this very important field.

The Teacher Recruitment and Retention Act of 2003 will take a landmark step in addressing the growing teacher shortage. The bill provides a strong incentive for individuals to enter the field of teaching and to make a long-term commitment to the students that need them the most. We need to do all we can to encourage college students to take on one of the most challenging, rewarding and important careers that exist.

There is nothing more important to our nation's future than the education of our children. The Teacher Recruitment and Retention Act of 2003 will help to fulfill our responsibility to children by ensuring that our most competent and caring teachers are adequately supported in their charge to educate our nation's future.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and continue our commitment to the men and women of this country who do so much to advance our nation and its children.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 17 I was unavoidably detained as my pager did not work.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join with Indian Americans across the Nation in recognition of India's Republic Day, which was celebrated this last Sunday. Fifty-three years ago India's constitution, greatly influenced by America's Founding Fathers, was adopted to solidify its parliamentary democracy.

Today, India is the world's largest democracy, of over 1 billion people; and the shared values of American and Indian people have never been more apparent. Our countries share a love of freedom; and both uphold the ideal of equality of all people, regardless of faith, gender, or ethnicity.

As the co-chair of the House India Caucus, along with the co- chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), I commend both President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, elected leaders of the world's two largest democracies, for continuing to actively cultivate strong ties between the United States and India.

Mr. Speaker, President Bush has shown courageous leadership on many fronts since his last State of the Union Address a year ago.

In November, the President moved forward in the war on terrorism by securing a unanimous vote by the United Nations Security Council to force Saddam Hussein to disarm. Day by day, these inspectors uncover more evidence of Iraq's noncompliance and continued threat to Americans and our allies. As a result, President Bush is building a coalition to secure a regime change in Iraq. On this issue, the President is not just leading America, he is leading the freedom-loving world.

The President continues to work with our allies to capture al Qaeda terrorists wherever they may be hiding, and he has pushed for the creation of a new Department of Homeland Security.

I applaud the President for his leadership and inspiration to the American people, and I know tonight's State of the Union Address will send a message to the world that America is strong, united, determined and prepared to take on the challenges of 2003.

Mr. Speaker, President George W. Bush made history when he announced to the world on December 17, 2002, that America would deploy a national missile defense shield to protect our country. My friend and mentor, the late Congressman Floyd Spence, continually warned us about the urgency of having a missile defense system in place to protect the homeland. President Bush has demonstrated tremendous leadership by taking action to work with our allies to create such a system inspired by Ronald Reagan.

As my colleague and chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), recently stated, ``The case for deploying a national missile defense system has never been more clear. Today, the United States cannot stop a single ballistic missile headed for an American city.''

I wholeheartedly agree, and I believe Congress should work in a bipartisan fashion to successfully implement a missile defense shield that will protect the American people and our allies.