E. Shaw

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson], a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Ensign], a valued member of the Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. ENSIGN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], the chairman of the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities. (Mr. GOODLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington [Ms. Dunn], a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay], the distinguished Republican whip.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays], a member of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs].

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. McCrery], a most valuable member of the Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Myrick], the former mayor of Charlotte.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes], a valued member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I come over here to do something I have never done before; that is, to trespass on the Democrat side. I hope that they will give me their understanding in my doing so, because I do not do it out of smugness or arrogance. I do it out of coming together. We have heard a lot of name calling, a lot of rhetoric, a lot of sound bites that we have heard all through this debate. We have come down a long road together. It was inevitable that the present welfare system was going to be put behind us. Today we need to bring to closure an era of a failed welfare system. I say that and I say that from this side of the aisle because I know that the Democrats agree with the Republicans. This is not a Republican bill that we are shoving down your throats. We are going to get a lot of Democratic support today. I think the larger the support, the more chance there is for this to really work and work well. The degree of the success that we are going to have is going to be a victory for the American people, for the poor. It is not going to be a victory for one political party. It is time now for us to put our hands out to one another and to come together to solve the problems of the poor. Without vision, the people will perish. Unfortunately, we have not had vision in our welfare system now for many, many years. It has been allowed to sit stagnant. We have piled layer upon layer of humanity on top of each other. We have paid people not to get married. We have paid people to have children out of marriage. We have paid people not to work. This is self-destructive behavior. We know that. We all agree with that. I know we have heard many, many speakers: My friend, the gentleman from Georgia, John Lewis, thinking that we are going the wrong way; my friend, the gentleman from New York, Charlie Rangel, saying that we are going the wrong way. I also see some of my colleagues who have fought for different changes within the welfare bill within the Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means, now coming to closure, where they do not believe this is a perfect bill. And I can stand here and say it is not a perfect bill, but it is as good as this Congress can do. It is as good as we can come together. We have included the Governors in balancing out their interests and in seeing what they have been successful with and how they feel that they can be successful. We have talked to many of the Members on the Democrats' side, and to my Republican colleagues I say, we are not through. We have another long road ahead of us. We need to get to a technical corrections bill as we see problems arise within this bill that we are going to be passing today. It was unexpected to hear that the President was going to endorse this bill and announced his signature of it. But let us now be patient with each other. Let us work with each other and let us bring this awful era of a failed welfare system to closure.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], chairman of the Committee on the Budget. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McInnis) The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5\3/4\ minutes.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that this language is intended to refer to the regional application centers being developed now as a statewide consortium among Florida's top four research universities, which have developed some unique technology for regional modeling and predictive work in this regard. Is my understanding correct?

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the last word.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, the colloquy that I wish to engage the chairman in involves the NOAA issue affecting Florida and the Nation.

Mr. SHAW. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has been extremely thoughtful and very supportive. I thank the gentleman. The work on El Nino, like the proposal from the Florida consortium, is a high priority for NOAA, your committee, and the entire Florida congressional delegation. I am encouraged by your support of statements today and the intent of the committee. amendment offered by mr. gutknecht

Mr. SHAW. Reclaiming my time, I would like to commend the chairman for the work of his subcommittee to ensure that needed resources are being dedicated to understanding the El Nino phenomenon, how we can improve our predictive capabilities, and understanding the full implications of these near- and mid-term climactic events on precious agriculture and vulnerable areas. Your committee report includes language that provides that some of the funding increases provided in the Climate and Global Change Program is intended to expand the International Research Institute program to include regional application centers.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond very briefly to my good friend from New York. On this floor we often use the word good friend in referring to somebody right before we slap them upside the head, but Charlie and I are good friends; we really are, both on the floor and off of the floor. I would like to say to the gentleman from New York, next year I think we all anticipate he would be the ranking member on the Committee on Ways and Means. My colleague may try to make the argument that he is going to be chairman, but it is not going to happen next year. But in any event he is going to be the top Democrat on the Committee on Ways and Means. In that position, as I have said to him in the past that I would hold out to him my hand to work in cooperation with him once welfare reform gets in place to be sure it is going to work, there are going to be problems with welfare reform. Anyone in this body that feels that we have washed our hands of the problem is kidding themselves. The Federal Government, by defense of a welfare system that has not worked and has built up layer after layer of generations on poverty, we have a responsibility as a Federal Government to go in and clean up this mess and to get people where the jobs are or get the jobs where the people are. I know, I say to my friend and colleague, that this is something that he is interested in, and I will tell my colleague tonight that I would be happy to go to his district and to work with him because I know of his concern for the people he represents. I also have concern for them. Now, one quick response to the question as to whether we are trying to rush something in before the election, we are trying to give this President the opportunity to deliver on a promise he made 4 years ago during the campaign on which he mentioned right below where the speaker is standing here tonight in telling us during the State of the Union Address that he wants a welfare bill that he can sign. We intend to deliver him a welfare bill that hopefully he will sign. It got great support in the Senate. I hope we take the momentum that they came out of the Senate onto the House Floor and that we send him a bipartisan bill and he will sign it.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I have read with great interest the motions to instruct. I might say, as to each one of these items, in crafting the welfare bill, we had these objectives in mind. Therefore, I find it would be most difficult to oppose the motions to instruct because I think that is exactly what we intend to keep uppermost in our minds. I think it is necessary to see this as to how we view welfare reform. We view this as giving a path and a way for people to get out of poverty. We know that the present system does not work. We know that people have been paid to stay in a way of life which is self- destructive and which has totally done away with a future for these people. Unfortunately, the poor victims of this current system, which has been held in place for so many years, are the children. We know that the children of welfare parents are going to, in all probability, and statistics prove these to be correct, are more likely to be poor themselves. They are more likely to fail in school or drop out of school. They are more likely to have trouble and get in trouble with the law. It is a self-destructive behavior. Mr. Speaker, I think the difference in defending the existing system, to defend the existing system is simply to make somebody comfortable while they are living in poverty. That is not the way. That is destructive of the human spirit. The new way, the way of welfare reform is going to go to the root of poverty. The root of poverty is joblessness. We have now found that in the inner cities of this country we have piled generation upon generation of people who otherwise would, as their ancestors were, be productive. It is important to remember that these people who are the descendants, who are on welfare, many of them are descendants of people who struggled their whole lives, who went to the cities for a better way of life, and now find that when the jobs went away, they were paid to stay there and do absolutely nothing. The answer to welfare reform very clearly is to get people out of poverty, to get them jobs, to give them incentives, to give them child care, which we do, to give the States greater flexibility in order to craft these programs, the welfare programs, in order to help the people. We are at last going to be measured by the number of people we get out of poverty, not the number of people that we pay while they are in poverty. We are going to give the bureaucrats a vested interest in the solution to poverty, not the question of just how many people they keep in welfare. This is a new day. I think yesterday we saw the action that was taken by the other body as a quantum leap forward in bipartisan cooperation. I can say that I am looking forward to a bipartisan solution in this body also. We had 30 Democrat Members who crossed over and voted with the Republicans just last week on welfare reform. I am looking forward to increasing that number, and I would like to almost rival the Senate in getting as many of the minority party as I possibly can to vote with us on the final passage of this bill. Mr. Speaker, there is not one Member of this Congress that is willing to get up and defend the status quo. Why? Because we all want a better life for the people of this country. I can say, again, that the four objectives that are set forth in the motion to instruct, unless somebody jumps up and says that there is something in here that I do not see, that there are some fishhooks that I do not anticipate, I would suggest that perhaps the Members vote yes on the motion to instruct that sets forth a general path toward getting people out of poverty. I believe it is a constructive motion to the conferees at this point. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding me the time.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support today of Ms. Molinari's amendment affirming the opposition of this Congress to the pernicious drug commonly known as roofies or the rape drug. In my district, Ft. Lauderdale, already more than 30 women have been raped after this drug was slipped into their drink. Ten times more powerful than Valium, this colorless, odorless, and tasteless depressant has the effect of rendering an unknowing victim susceptible to suggestion and thus vulnerable to sexual assault or rape. Because amnesia is one of roofies major side effects, victims may have the frightening experience of not being able to completely recall what happened to them. Roofies are illegally trafficked in from Mexico and Colombia and are quickly becoming a critical problem in the Southern States, from California all the way to Florida. Particularly in my own State of Florida, high school students not realizing the addictive nature and adverse side effects of the drug are buying the widely available roofies on the streets for as little as $2.50. Mr. Speaker, we must take a stand against the illegal importation of roofies. We must not continue to let our women and teenage children be so appallingly vulnerable to sexual assault. I urge you to please support Ms. Molinari's amendment.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, I want to join my other colleagues in congratulating the chairman for the way that she has presided over this body today. She has brought us great dignity. I would like to also speak to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Tanner], my good friend, who I think has done a wonderful job. I think it is incredible that the name Mike Castle, as a Republican Member, a most distinguished Republican Member, appears first on a bill that is being offered as a substitute by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt]. My goodness, what in the world is this Chamber coming to? But I think there are a few things we need to correct here. These are some of the characteristics that have been and some of the charges that have been laid toward H.R. 3734, the base bill that we are going to vote on this afternoon. We hear speaker, after speaker who has gotten up and said how it is weak on work. For goodness sake, one of the last speakers gets down with a poster that says we are weak on work. Which is it, are we too weak on work or too strong on work? They say that the work requirements are not even obtainable. Come on, we cannot have it both ways. At the request of the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle], we also put in our bill, because he is concerned about, as a former Governor, whether or not the States are going to be able to meet these requirements. We provide that the States are going to report back to the Ways and Means and the Finance Committee in 3 years to take another look at these work standards to be sure that we have not made them too strong. That has been the concern that has been voiced here. Let us put all the cliches aside, obviously the soundbite, weak on work, hard on kids. Come on. This is not the case. You know that, I know that. The dignity of this debate should bring us above that, and we should be talking in specifics. When we have honest disagreements as to what to do with noncitizens, I think we should face those. But I think it is also important to understand that in such matters as higher education, we allow noncitizens to continue to get Pell grants. We allow them, by the way, to sign a college loan by themselves. Castle-Tanner provides that the sponsor has to cosign that loan. We did not require that, because we do not consider higher education as welfare. That is part of the American dream. This is something that we desperately want to preserve. I would tell my colleagues as members of this committee that, when we talk about harder on kids, sure, we do not provide for vouchers out of the Federal funds after 5 years. You might argue that that is hard on kids. I do not think so. We provide, however, that the States can provide 20 percent of the funding for their case load, of the Federal funds, to go beyond the 5-year work level. What does that mean? It means that, if they want to create with that 20 percent a voucher system, they can do it. So there is virtually no difference in the two bills when you look at the practical application of what the States can do. But we set forth the national policy, and the national policy is that we are for now, and once and for all, going to time-limit the period of time someone can be on welfare. That is going to be the national policy. We are going to also allow the States to craft their own bills. We are not going to continue to make welfare available to noncitizens. That is a very big difference of opinion that we have here in this hall, and I respect that difference of opinion. But soon we are going to be taking a vote, I think, that is going to be most historic. When we talk about a bipartisan approach, I sincerely hope, and we have reached out to the Democrat side of the aisle in bringing Members in and talking to them. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Levin] has said on the floor that he made us do it. Well, whether he made us do it or whether it is bipartisan, it happened, and it happened with the Democrats and Republicans coming together. We are receptive to good ideas not only from the Republican side but from the Democrat side as well. Once the minority party is fulfilling its responsibility of criticizing legislation that is provided by the Republican side, they are fulfilling their requirement under the system in which we work. When we listen to you, we are working in a bipartisan way. We are not getting bullied into any position. One thing I want to answer, too, that the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Levin] said, talked about all the rumors that are around about how we are going to cut this and that out of the bill. I can say the rumors are starting from my colleague's side; they are not starting on our side. I do not intend to take any of those provisions out that my colleague has talked about as being rumored to come out in conference. I would hope that the other body would move swiftly and pass this bill, that we could conference it and get it to the President's desk. I would also hope on final passage that many of the Democrats who feel strongly about welfare reform, as I do, and as the Republicans do and as the President has stated, that my colleague will join us and show support of welfare reform coming out of this body so that, when we put something on the President's desk, we can truly say this is a bipartisan effort, this has bipartisan support, because we have worked with many of you on the Democrat side. My colleagues have had input into this bill. I would now earnestly ask them after the substitute, support H.R. 3734.

Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington [Ms. Dunn], a Member of the Committee on Ways and Means.