Wally Herger

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. If the gentleman would yield, yes.

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gerlach) for the sake of a colloquy.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I appreciate the gentleman's comments. I agree it is important to continue to provide States with the resources and flexibility necessary for them to address the needs of the residents. The 1996 welfare reform law included specific provisions designed to address the concerns for growing States such as Nevada. Those provisions are retained and extended in this bill. As we move forward, we will continue to take every step to see that this legislation includes adequate resources for the States to serve low-income families and children, including in States with growing populations.

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter) for the sake of a colloquy.

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Sometimes, when I listen to the debate on the other side, I wonder if we are talking about the same legislation. We are seeing in the area of child care some $2 billion more that is being placed into this legislation than was in the 1996 bill. Again, since we keep hearing about unfunded mandates, I again have a letter in front of me from the Congressional Budget Office indicating that there are no unfunded State mandates. But let us go over the incredible successes of the 1996 bill and where we go here in our new legislation. Child poverty has fallen since 1996 by nearly 3 million children who have been lifted up out of poverty. The black child poverty rate is now at a record low. More parents are working today than ever before in welfare. Employment by mothers most likely to go on welfare rose by 40 percent between 1995 and 2000. Dependents fell by unprecedented levels. Welfare caseloads fell by 9 million during this period of time, from 14 million recipients in 1994 to just 5 million today. Yet there is much that needs to be done. Even though we have more people working than before, there are still 58 percent of recipients who are not working or who are not receiving training or who are not involved at all. Too many families are breaking up. It is tough enough to raise children with two parents, let alone just one. We still have 2 million families that remain dependent on welfare that we want to address. What our new legislation would do is that we allow for more parents to be able to work and, therefore, be able to receive benefits. States will continue to receive the record Federal welfare and child care funds, despite since 1995, a nearly 60 percent reduction in rates. This means that average allotment per family will go from less than $7,000 in 1995 to some $16,000 today. And there are funds in here to help encourage and to help give counseling to encourage that every child has two parents at home. So we recognize this. Again, of all the legislation that I have been involved with in 16 years, I feel this has been the most successful. And what we are doing in this current legislation, H.R. 4, is building on these incredible successes of the last 5 years and continuing them. I urge the strong, overwhelming support of this body on H.R. 4. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to my friend from Texas that when we started welfare reform back in 1996, the average amount of money that was available for each family was slightly less than $7,000. Today, that amount, because we block granted it, the average amount that is available for each family today is about $16,000. More than double. Also in this bill we have $2 billion that is for additional child care. And just to the State of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), that will amount to some $370 million of additional child care, just for the State of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), a key member of our Subcommittee on Human Resources.

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time to close.

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, do I have the right to close?

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), another important member of our Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like, just in response to the gentleman from Maryland, the CBO has indicated that there will not be any unfunded mandates. I have a letter in front of me. Because of the broad flexibility afforded States under the TANF program to structure the program and determine benefits, the new requirements of H.R. 4 would not be intergovernmental mandates. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), a key player in welfare reform on the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield three minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller).

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), the original chairman of the committee that put out the 1996 welfare reform.

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind my good friend from California, who is talking about Christian programs and how much poverty is affected by our current welfare bill and the new one, our own State of California poverty rates by the latest Census have gone down since the 1996 bill by 1,031,000. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, just to respond, it is important that we move now. We had more than 20 hearings on this legislation last year. The legislation actually expired September 30 of 2002. We are now 6 months on life support. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) mentioned that the reason the welfare rolls have dropped is because of prosperity. I would remind the gentleman that we are in a recession now. And even though we are in a recession, the welfare rolls, even since 2000, have dropped some 7 percent. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This important legislation before us today, H.R. 4, the Personal Responsibility Work and Family Promotion Act of 2003, builds on the many successes of the historic 1996 welfare reform law. H.R. 4 will help even more people transition from welfare to work and know the dignity of collecting a paycheck instead of a welfare check. As my colleagues may recall, before 1996 the Nation's welfare program actually encouraged dependence with recipients staying on the rolls for an average of 13 years. The program discouraged work, and caseloads reached record levels with some 5 million families and 14 million recipients dependent on benefits by 1994. Since the 1996 changes, work has increased, incomes are higher, child poverty has been reduced, and families are more self-reliant. Welfare caseloads are down more than 50 percent and have continued to decline even over the past 2 years as unemployment rates have risen. Nearly 3 million children have been lifted from poverty, and poverty rates for African American children and families headed by single mothers have reached all-time lows. We must continue to build on this record of success. We can do that by passing H.R. 4. This legislation fulfills the President's call to further improve the welfare system by encouraging even more welfare recipients to work. It would protect children and strengthen families by promoting healthy marriages, and it would allow States increased flexibility in operating their welfare programs. The welfare program needs our immediate attention since it has been on life support since October 1 of 2002. Permanent reauthorization of this program is vitally important to States and the families and individuals this program serves. I urge all Members to vote in support of H.R. 4. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join with President Bush in his call to assist our Nation's small businesses by introducing the ``Small Business Expensing Improvement Act of 2003.'' This legislation will encourage new business investment and expansion, and I am pleased to be joined in this effort by several of my colleagues on the tax- writing Ways and Means Committee. Small businesses truly are the backbone of our economy, representing more than half of all jobs and economic output. We should not take small business vitality for granted, however. Rather, our tax laws should support small businesses in their role as the engines of innovation, growth, and job creation. Earlier today, President Bush unveiled his economic growth proposal. I applaud the President for his commitment to our Nation's small business owners and his dedication to ensure that our tax laws do not impede the growth and development of small businesses. The legislation we are introducing today will implement a key element of the President's plan, expansion of the benefits available to small businesses under Internal Revenue Code Section 179. Our bill will improve our tax laws to make it easier for small businesses to make the crucial investments in new equipment necessary for continued prosperity. Under Code Section 179, a small business is allowed to expense the first $25,000 in new business investment in a year. Following the President's lead, our legislation will permanently increase this amount to $75,000. Furthermore, our bill will index this amount to ensure that the value of this provision is not eroded over time. This legislation will also allow more small businesses to take advantage of expensing by increasing from $200,000 to $325,000 the total amount a business may invest in a year and qualify for Section 179. It is important to note that this amount has not been adjusted for inflation since the provision was enacted into law in 1986. Mr. Speaker, in times of economic uncertainty, we must do all we can to encourage new investment and job creation. The ``Small Business Expensing Improvement Act of 2003'' will help accomplish this worthy goal. I applaud President Bush for his leadership on this issue, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this much-needed legislation.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5063, as amended. This bill would temporarily extend unemployment benefits for an additional 5 weeks. It also will extend the funding and rules for the Nation's welfare reform program through March 31, 2003, allowing us additional time to reauthorize the historic 1996 law. Mr. Speaker, we must keep the pressure on to reauthorize welfare reform for 5 years as quickly as possible. This will be our goal in the next Congress, and we look forward to working with both Republicans and Democrats to get this job done. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution before us today. The principle purpose of the resolution is to authorize the use of military force--if deemed necessary--to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. The Hussein regime poses a direct threat to the security of the United States and our partners in the world. And this threat must not be allowed to stand. In the aftermath of the Persian Gulf War, Saddam Hussein agreed to numerous United Nations Security Council resolutions--16 of them--as conditions of his political survival. Now, almost 12-years later, Iraq's leader has failed outright to comply with these terms of peace. Hussein has continued to stockpile weapons of mass destruction, subjected the people of Iraq to squalor and starvation, openly sponsored terrorist attacks, and has in all ways defied the international community. He has lied repeatedly and there is no doubt that he cannot be trusted. Yet still, many wonder if Saddam's distant rogue regime is a real threat to our national security, and the safety of American citizens? To answer this question we need look no further than the horrors of 9-11 and how terrorists from afar were able to strike at America. Hussein's hatred of our country has been made plain. Despite our best efforts at border security, it is conceivable that terrorists, sponsored by Hussein, might smuggle Iraqi weapons into the United States for use in an attack against our citizens. Our intelligence reports confirm this threat as real. Iraq maintains an extensive stockpile of sophisticated chemical and biological weapons, and is continuing in its program to develop nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. We also know that Iraq supports terrorist groups and encourages violence against Israel with cash payments to the families of suicide bombers. Under Hussein's regime, Iraq has become a new safe-harbor for al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. Just as we must vote to pass the resolution before us, so too must the United Nations reaffirm its importance in the global theater, approving the use of force against Iraq. As in the Gulf War, a unified coalition effort from the beginning would help foster consensus to rebuild Iraq and reconstitute a new Iraqi government following military action. As we prepare for what may be an inevitable war scenario in Iraq, we must acknowledge the possible outcomes of such an action, both positive and negative. Our objective would be to eliminate the threat posed by Hussein's regime, and thereby create a more stabile political environment in the Middle East. Still, the decision to commit American troops to the battlefield is never easy. In addition, there are also other considerations, such as, if we are successful in our mission, what happens next? What kind of force will it take to successfully see through a transition in Iraq and foster a new democracy? While these possibilities must be considered when weighing any action, the immediate issue is clear: Iraq is a threat that must be dealt with swiftly. I firmly believe that our President will make the right decision, in the best interest of the United States, and I have the utmost confidence in the integrity of his counsel. Mr. Speaker--at times we must be willing to use force to protect the security of our people and of our Nation. Now is one of those times. I would like to thank my colleagues in the House for introducing this strong resolution, and would like to urge all to stand by the President and vote for its passage.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the subject of H.R. 2357.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).

Mr. HERGER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of legislation introduced by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones) to protect the first amendment rights of men and women of faith across America. Our Nation's pastors, priests, rabbis and clerics should be free to express their political opinions just as every other American is free to do so. Unfortunately, many church leaders today are afraid to voice their political opinions because they fear that the IRS may revoke their tax- exempt status. This is exactly what happened to a church which criticized the views of then Governor Bill Clinton in 1992. Should any American have to forfeit their first amendment freedom of speech just because they have a religious affiliation? I certainly hope not. The legislation before us attempts to recognize the need for an appropriate separation of church and state while not silencing the opinions of religious leaders in the process. Many conservative church leaders in particular have voiced concerns that they may be targeted by the IRS if they simply inform their parishioners of a candidate's position on an issue. These religious leaders point out that the IRS has recently investigated a number of conservative groups while leaving unscathed liberal churches which actively promote a candidate or political party. Madam Speaker, this is wrong. During the 2000 election campaign, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, a liberal special interest group, sent letters to houses of worship across the country warning them against distributing Christian Coalition voter guides lest they be in danger of losing their tax-exempt status. This type of action has a chilling effect on political speech due to the current ambiguity of the Federal Tax Code. The gentleman from North Carolina's (Mr. Jones) bill will go a long way towards clarifying the tax law with respect to religious institutions and their participation in the political process. Madam Speaker, at a time when our society can most benefit from a wide diversity of views informed by faith and conscience, we should be doing everything we can to promote freedom of speech by both religious and secular institutions. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HERGER. Madam Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones), the sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. HERGER. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

Mr. HERGER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler). (Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)