Roger Wicker

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a dedicated public servant and a leader in the field of higher education in the state of Mississippi. On August 15, 2002, University of Mississippi Dean of Students Dr. Thomas J. (Sparky) Reardon will celebrate 25 years of faithful service to the state of Mississippi and to his alma mater. Dr. Reardon began his career in university administration as coordinator of pre-admissions and was later promoted to the post of associate director of student services. He assumed the job of dean of students in 2001. Dr. Reardon has been a tremendous influence on the lives of two generations of students during his distinguished career at Ole Miss. His leadership and experience have been assets during the tenure of three chancellors and countless faculty and staff members over the past quarter century. He is a well-established professional in the field of Greek life on campus. He was recognized nationally in 1987 with the Association of Fraternity Advisors' Distinguished Service Award and received that organization's prestigious Robert H. Schaffer Award in 1998. Dr. Reardon has been honored with citations from individual international fraternities such as Kappa Alpha Order, Sigma Alpha Epsilon, and Phi Gamma Delta, as well as from other colleges and universities throughout the country. Dr. Reardon has also continued to be actively involved in the affairs of his own fraternity, Phi Delta Theta. His contributions and wise counsel as a devoted alumnus have earned the respect and admiration of these young men over the years. A native of Clarksdale, Mississippi, Dr. Reardon is also a devoted member and leader at St. John's Catholic Church in Oxford. I have known Sparky Reardon for more than 33 years. He is the personification of the excellence, achievements, and traditions that are the University of Mississippi. He has been a friend and mentor to thousands of students and colleagues during his remarkable career. I am proud to call him my friend and honored to join this tribute to his 25 years of service to Ole Miss and the state of Mississippi.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the chairman and the ranking member for producing this bipartisan legislation which will support our troops, modernize our military, and ensure that we are prepared to win the war on terrorism. I support this legislation, but feel it is appropriate that I discuss one unfunded issue that is vitally important to the future of our military. The President's Budget appropriately requests continued funding of the LHD-8 Amphibious Assault Ship. Unfortunately, this bill did not fund the requested $243 million necessary to continue procurement of this ship. Our Navy's LHA-1 class ``Big Deck'' Amphibious Assault Ships are at the end of their service life. Navy studies indicate a requirement for twelve Big Deck Amphibious Assault Ships and must procure replacements for the older ships to sustain this requirement. The past four fiscal years, Congress has recognized this need by providing over $1 billion for advanced procurement, detail design, and construction of a new LHD- 1 class ship. Congress authorized the Secretary of the Navy to enter into a contract for the construction and early delivery of this ship, the LHD-8, providing that it ``shall be funded on an incremental basis.'' The LHD-8 is being procured under a fixed price construction contract, entered into by the government and the shipbuilder in good faith based on the assumption that annual government funding increments would always stay ahead of the expenditure curve. This would allow the parties to plan and execute design and construction without concern for interference resulting from funding shortfalls. The loss of FY03 funding would violate the precepts of good faith contracting, which is essential for many defense procurement programs. Mr. Chairman, failure to appropriate the $243 million requested by the President would cause several negative repercussions, including severe economic impacts in my state of Mississippi. The potential for the Navy to issue a ``stop-work'' order on this project due to funding uncertainty could cause a job loss in the shipbuilding industry alone of over 1,500 jobs. If funding were delayed even one year, delivery of this military asset would be pushed back from FY07 to FY08, causing an additional cost to the taxpayers of approximately $129 million. It is my hope that throughout the consideration of the bill, the Chairman and Committee can provide the resources necessary to keep this project on the contracted schedule.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this comprehensive package which will provide needed improvements to the Medicare system. Much of the debate on this legislation has centered on the need to add a prescription drug component to Medicare. I agree with this goal, and I support the responsible proposal put forth by the Ways and Means and Commerce Committees. The practice of medicine has significantly changed since the Medicare program was created in the 1960s, and the role of prescription drugs has dramatically increased. It is time we reform the Medicare program to reflect changing times. However, I want to focus on other, very important parts of this legislation related to reimbursements for providers, especially those in rural America. This legislation provides a lifeline for rural America. In my conversations with doctors, hospital administrators, and community leaders throughout Mississippi, a common concern is the decreasing ability to provide access to quality care in rural areas. The jobs of rural health care professionals are made harder by inequities in Medicare reimbursement rates between rural and urban areas. This bill goes a long way in correcting this problem by increasing the standardized amount for hospital reimbursement in small cities and rural areas to the level of urban areas in a two step process over the next 2 fiscal years. This is in addition to an increase in the market basket adjustment that all hospitals--urban, suburban, and rural--will receive. The level of the standardized amount is especially important because this is the base with which Medicare starts when establishing reimbursement rates for specific services. Equalizing the standardized amount reduces the difference in payments caused by other parts of the Medicare reimbursement formula. But by putting urban and rural hospitals on the same footing at the beginning of the reimbursement formula, rural hospitals will benefit for years to come as changes are made to any part of the reimbursement system. This major improvement for rural hospitals will be fully implemented in just 2 years. Other aspects of this bill provide additional benefits for home health agencies and critical access hospitals in rural America. The threat of a 15 percent reduction for home health services has been eased in recent years as Congress has continually delayed the planned reduction. This bill will eliminate the threat by permanently repealing the 15 percent cut, allowing home health agencies to adequately prepare their financial future. Critical access hospitals are increasingly an attractive option for rural communities that would otherwise be without health care service. By improving the rules and regulations for critical access hospitals, this legislation provides more flexibility in operations and in attracting physicians to medically underserved areas. I am also pleased this legislation includes a three site hospice pilot project which is based upon H.R. 3270, a bill which I introduced in an effort to improve options for hospice care in rural areas. I believe the current 80 percent out-patient requirement makes it economically difficult to provide inpatient hospice care in rural areas because of smaller patient populations. It is my hope that this pilot project will validate the worth of our proposal and lead to an expansion of this specialized care to rural areas across the Nation. Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill which will improve access to quality health care, be it for prescription drugs, or care in a hospital, home health agency, or hospice. I urge support for this legislation.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time and for her fine statement on behalf of the rule and the legislation. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on behalf of this bill. I appreciate the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) for moving this bill through their committee so it could be brought to the floor today, and I appreciate the hard work of the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) and the Committee on Rules for providing the House with a fair and open rule. I introduced H.R. 1979 a year ago after listening to the people who run small regional airports in my home State of Mississippi. A common concern of the airport managers is that their airports lack the necessary facilities and equipment to guide commercial jets and private planes safely. But this is not just a worry in small-town Mississippi. It is commonplace throughout America. Smaller airports depend on Federal money provided through the airport improvement program, AIP, for capital improvements. However, the program that is designed to improve the safety and efficiency of our national aviation system does not allow airports to use AIP money to construct and equip control towers, and that is what this bill is about today. The bill before us today corrects this situation by giving our airports the option to use their AIP funds to construct or equip contract control towers. If more airports are able to use the most up-to-date safety equipment, accidents will be prevented and lives will be saved. Air traffic controllers will be able to verify the position of planes all over America, not just around the airports at larger cities. Unfortunately, there are many examples of the type of accident we are trying to prevent today. On February 8, 2000, over Zion, Illinois, two planes collided, crashing into a residential area. All of the passengers were killed. Debris from the accident fell on residential streets and the Midwestern Regional Medical Center where the windows were blown out and two hospitals workers were burned. At the time of the accident, the controllers at the Waukegan Airport directed traffic based only on the pilots' reports of their locations. A student pilot reported on her position inaccurately, and the controllers had no way to confirm her position. After a study of this accident, the National Transportation Safety Board issued a report on April 27, 2001, stating, ``Preliminary findings indicate if the Waukegan tower had been equipped with a terminal radar display at the time of the accident, the controller could have confirmed the pilots' position reports and established a more effective sequencing plan, thereby preventing the accident.'' However, the equipment the National Transportation Safety Board said the airport needed is very expensive. It is just the type of safety precautionary equipment for which the AIP program should be utilized. This legislation will make that possible. Since this and other accidents, many airports have found room in tight budgets to equip their control towers with terminal radar displays. But this is not an option for airports which do no even have a tower yet. On June 23, 2000, 2 and a half miles from the Boca Raton, Florida, airport, a Learjet collided with a stunt plane, killing four people. Wreckage of the planes fell on a heavily populated golf course and community. At the time of the accident, neither pilot was talking to controllers to verify their respective positions because the airport did not have a tower to house an air traffic controller. While the most important goal of this legislation is to improve safety in our skies, there are additional benefits. Building and equipping more control towers will provide relief for our congested air traffic system as more reliever airports are created, and rural communities will be more attractive for economic development prospects as air travel opportunities increase. This commonsense legislation does not direct more money to any particular airport. All the bill does is give airports more options to use funds which they are already going to receive from the Federal Government. I expect a good portion of the debate today will be about an amendment which I expect the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) to offer. It is my understanding the ranking member of the full committee plans to offer an amendment which would strike a portion of the bill concerning possible reimbursement for airports which have built and equipped their control towers since October 1996. I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment. The purpose of this section in the bill is to provide support to airports that depleted their reserves or increased their bonded indebtedness to provide an optimum level of safety and security at their airports. During a time when regional airports are struggling, removing debt or replenishing reserves would allow airports to complete projects that are not AIP eligible or to comply with unfunded Federal security mandates, thereby further enhancing security and safety at airports. This is a budget-neutral position which will not direct any money to any airports. All the section does is give airports the ability to reimburse a portion of their expenses with a cap of $1.1 million. Of the only 21 airports which will be eligible for reimbursement, most will not even be able to reach the $1.1 million cap since many of the airports utilize funding streams which are not eligible for reimbursement. During the debate, the ranking member may argue that the reimbursement provision of this legislation will negatively affect the safety of the national airport system. I believe nothing could be further from the truth, Mr. Speaker. The 21 airports that have built towers have been proactive in providing the same level of safety at their regional airports as the large hub airports provide, and in the process have enhanced security of the national airport system. I believe these airports should be rewarded for their proactive consideration. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Oberstar amendment which would strip this valuable portion of the legislation. In closing, I look forward to the debate. Once again, I thank the Rules Committee for a fair rule. I look forward to the enactment of this legislation, which will increase safety for all Americans. I urge a vote in favor of the rule and in favor of H.R. 1979.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding on this question of a contract, because I think that is going to be the subject of a lot of debate during his amendment. There is no question that we can hold these people to this contract; but I think the question for this House is, is it fair to hold to a contract under the law as it was, an airport that did the right thing, that said, we are going to do what is necessary for public safety?

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WICKER. Well, that is what we will have the debate about on the Oberstar amendment.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, I am not sure that analogy is exactly correct. I would just say this. The gentleman is exactly right. We have the weight of the Federal Government, and we can hold them to that contract if we want to. I do not think it is fair, and I think that is what the majority of the committee was saying.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, it seems that a number of Members from the other side of the aisle have come to the floor today and said, we oppose the bill in its current form and will vote for it only if the Oberstar amendment is approved. I hope that we do not create the impression here on the floor of the House that this is strictly a partisan issue. I certainly hope it is not, because I want to thank the 21 Members of the House who are Democrats who have cosponsored the bill in its current form without the Oberstar amendment having been adopted. I certainly hope we can resist the Oberstar amendment and pass the bill in its current committee- approved form without adoption of the Oberstar amendment. If I might, Mr. Chairman, I would like to quote from the minority views of the committee with regard to this bill. One portion of the minority views that I would like to quote is, ``We support the concept of making contract air traffic control towers eligible for Federal assistance under the Airport Improvement Program.'' Indeed, Mr. Chairman, this has been said by Members of the other side of the aisle earlier today. It is a good idea to change the law to allow this. As a matter of fact, it has been stated by the leadership of the committee that, but for this small item of reimbursement, this would be unanimous, it might even go under suspension or unanimous consent. We are all under agreement that this change in the law should be made. Further quoting from the minority views, ``While we applaud the airports for their foresight and proactive steps to enhance safety, Federal funding is limited,'' referring to those airports who have taken the initiative, built the control towers, and are now saying treat us by the same rules being created today and allow us to use our entitlement of AIP for this purpose also. The minority Members seem to be saying you did the right thing, you enhanced safety, and you are to be commended. However, we are not going to allow airports the opportunity to use their AIP money for this purpose. Now the minority makes the point that Federal funding is limited, but I would strongly make this point: AIP money is an entitlement. It is a set amount, and we are not increasing or decreasing that in this bill. We are simply adding an allowed type of usage of the AIP money. So what we have this year and what we are seeing today is the government, the big Federal Government, coming in in the form of an action by the House of Representatives, and we hope by the other body later on, and saying that, yes, we all agree, it is a good idea to change the purposes of the AIP and to add this additional usage of contract control towers. We are almost unanimous in doing so. Yet, Mr. Chairman, there are airports who just got finished building their own contract towers, and they come in and say we did the right thing, Mr. Congressman. We took the initiative. We acted in a proactive manner; and they say, in effect, we hope we will not be penalized and hope to take some of that AIP money, if we so choose, and retire our bonded indebtedness. I think the majority of the subcommittee and the majority of the committee saw it that way, and I believe a majority of this House will see it that way, too. This is money that the airports are entitled to use anyway. We are simply saying, yes, thank you for being proactive and enhancing safety. People will say, well, you've got a contract. Well, the contract was signed because that is what the law said at that point. I would almost make the point, Mr. Chairman, that that contract was signed under duress. But we are saying as a Congress today, we can change the law, and we are saying on both sides of the aisle, we ought to change the law. We should change it. It is a good idea. It simply comes down to a question of fairness. We do not have to pass this bill today, Mr. Chairman. We certainly can hold these airports to this contract they signed under the old law. We can do it. The question is, is it egregious to let them out of their contract as my friend from Minnesota has said? Or is it fair to let them out of this; having changed the rules for everyone else in the country, for this little handful of airports, is it fair to hold them to that contract made under duress? I think most of the Members of this House today will say no, it is not fair. They will say that the committee version is correct, and they will resist voting for the Oberstar amendment.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. WICKER. I yield to my friend from Wisconsin.

Mr. WICKER. Reclaiming my time, let me just say this. There have been a lot of complaints, this morning, about the rule. I think it is no secret that I was not overly delighted about the procedure under which we are taking this bill up. But that debate was held last night. That vote was taken and that issue is behind us. We have before us now a national security, wartime appropriation, primarily for the troops. I think it is time that this House moved forward, as the Chairman has suggested. Let us take up the legitimate amendments that are before us. Let us move beyond the time-consuming dilatory tactics that we have seen so far and let us pass a bill for America. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I appreciate my friend from Mississippi yielding to me for just a few seconds there. The fact is that during the time his daughter and my daughter were in college, during the last 4 years, during a Republican majority in the House of Representatives, this Nation has paid off almost $500 billion in public debt during that time. That is debt that the Nation was borrowing from the public through savings bonds, T bills and that sort of thing. We have reduced that amount during the time that our daughters were in college. I would find my friend's argument a little more credible if that $6 trillion in public debt that he was pointing to on that chart were not the very same $6 trillion in national debt that his party ran up during the time from 1980 to the time of the Republican takeover of the House of Representatives in 1994 and 1995. I would think that my colleagues from the Democrat side of the aisle would have a little more credibility as fiscal conservatives if that were not the figure that they themselves ran up while they were in charge of this entire town.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield, since he called my name?

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I find it interesting that the gentleman mentioned both our daughters, who recently graduated from college. I would find the gentleman's remarks to be a little more credible if he would at least acknowledge that during the time those girls were in college this Republican majority in the United States Congress has paid off $500 billion in public debt during that time.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from South Carolina for those very kind and overly generous words. Like my colleague from South Carolina and the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania who just spoke, I was a member of the State Senate. I served for 7 years in that body until I was fortunate enough to be elected by the people to come here to Washington. During a portion of that time, Mr. Speaker, I served as chairman of the Public Health and Welfare Committee in the State Senate in Mississippi, and so I share some of the same experiences that the two previous speakers have had. I think I can attest, Mr. Speaker, to the difficulty we had at the State level prior to 1996 in enacting meaningful welfare reform at that level. God knows we tried and we tried to do our best, but we did not have the flexibility that we needed and that the 1996 Act has brought. We were forced into going individually on a case-by- case, law-by-law basis to the Federal Government for what we called a waiver, and hoping that we could get the department, in both Republican and Democrat administrations, to agree to those particular waivers. It just simply did not give us the flexibility that we needed. Also, I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that there was not the solid commitment to a work requirement prior to the 1996 Act. And so I am so very, very proud that at least three of us and many more have been able to come from the State level where we made a gallant attempt to come here to Washington, D.C. Of course I got here with my friend from Florida who spoke earlier with the class of 1994. We worked real hard for 2 years. I am just so pleased to talk about the progress that we have had. One of our most prominent colleagues from that class is the chairman of the Republican Conference, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts). He has made the statement ever since we arrived in town that we need to measure welfare reform successes differently. We do not need to measure the success of welfare reform by how many people we can get onto the program, how many people we can get onto the rolls. Quite to the contrary, Mr. Speaker. We need to measure the success by how many people we have been able to move off the welfare rolls into meaningful employment. Indeed, to move them from the welfare rolls to the tax rolls. I spoke in my 1-minute address earlier this morning about some statistics that I am very, very pleased about concerning the 1996 Act. There has been a 56 percent drop in welfare caseloads nationwide. Just think about that, Mr. Speaker. Over half of the caseloads, gone, a tremendous measure of success. The lowest levels of welfare rolls since 1965. Two million children, children, rescued from poverty whose moms and daddies are now enjoying the benefits of a paycheck and the good life that we seek here in the United States of America. And, of course, the lowest child poverty levels in many, many years. So I am pleased at the statistics that we can cite, and those statistics are real and they are meaningful. But I am also so pleased that my colleagues tonight have done, as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) stated, reduce it to human terms and tell individual facts about individual American citizens who have benefited from this excellent piece of legislation. And so when I heard that a number of my colleagues were going to present success stories, naturally, Mr. Speaker, I went back to my local welfare office to ask how the TANF program, the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families Program is doing back on the local level where I was able to work with them as a State legislator and certainly now continue to be interested. And so I was pleased, also, to receive story after story and example after example of ways in which this legislation has benefited individuals on the human level. Some of these recipients did not mind if I used their names, but I thought I would make up a pseudonym for them just for their own privacy. One young woman, I will call her Sara, became a single mom while attending one of our community colleges in northeast Mississippi. Knowing that she needed to complete her education in order to provide for her daughter, Sara enrolled in the TANF program and received help with expenses involving the raising of a child while going to school full-time. She went to school full-time while working full-time for the community college in the work-study program. After completing community college, Sarah commuted to one of our fine 4-year universities in north Mississippi where she continued her work-study. The TANF program enabled her to focus on the future by paying for transportation costs to and from school and for her daughter's day care expenses. Now, listen to this, Mr. Speaker. Sarah received her degree, a master's in instructional technology in the year 2000. With this post- graduate degree, this former welfare recipient was able to find a job quickly and become self-sufficient, and I can now report with pleasure that she is the technology coordinator for one of our very fine local school districts in the public school system in northeast Mississippi. We can all go on and on with these excellent examples of the way this program has worked. I will simply mention Sandra, the mother of a child with spina bifida, who was able to go on the TANF program and is now a clerk at an equipment store in her local hometown. I will mention Betty Ann, the mother of four, who for a time had to go on the TANF program, but now is working full-time at the Old Miss law school. Then there is Jane, who was forced to leave her husband of 11 years because of some domestic abuse allegations, but has now, after being on the TANF program, been able to get back onto her feet, move out of public housing and into her own home. Then finally there is Marie, the mother of two young sons, a welfare recipient who was able to go back to school and is now a registered nurse. Success story after success story, whether you take it at the individual level or the overall statistical level. I simply would add this, and then I will yield back to the gentleman from South Carolina with my appreciation for his good leadership on this matter. More work does need to be done, and it gets harder and harder. If this had been an easy matter, we would have been able to resolve it in the 30 years when we were pretty much going down hill in the welfare area. We need further encouragement of work. We have learned in the past 6 years of welfare reform experience that making work pay is an integral part of actually moving people into a meaningful life. So we need to further encourage work when we are considering the reauthorization of this legislation. We indeed need to expand State flexibility more so than we have already done. I have already mentioned the importance of having that and giving our State legislators, who, after all, are closer to the people, the opportunity to fit their local needs into an overall Federal program, and then to promote marriage. I think the statistics more and more become overwhelming that a stable marriage, to the extent that the Federal Government can encourage stable, voluntary, safe marriages, that marriage is the best antidote for welfare problems. So, I just would say, Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to talk about success, to talk about our determination in this House of Representatives to make the system even better, and once again to thank my very capable new colleague from South Carolina for his hard work in this regard.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, of course, we are here tonight talking about the success of one single piece of legislation, the 1996 Welfare Reform Act. We are indeed proud, and I think we have the individual stories to back it up, as well as the overall data. But it is all about job creation and moving people from welfare to a meaningful job, and meaningful participation in the American way. Some people have said, ``Well, Congressman, you have a lot of success stories. But actually, I think we could attribute that to the booming economy, not to the Welfare Reform Act.'' I think, actually, the statistics show and the experts have told us that a good portion of this success that we have been talking about so proudly tonight does come from the Welfare Reform Act of 1996. But also, I am happy to take credit, as a Member of this Congress for the last 7\1/2\ years, for the good economy that we have had, for the most part. Now, we have had a business downturn, which we are going to have in a free and open and market-driven economy. We are going to have that sort of thing. But I am proud of the tax reform and the tax reductions that I have twice been able to participate in as a Member of the United States House of Representatives. I am proud of the tax reduction that we enacted last year, the fact that we sent tax rebate checks back to millions of Americans to the tune of $40 billion, at a time when the economy was just beginning to slow down and we needed a boost there. So to the extent that our policies in this Republican House of Representatives for the past 7\1/2\ years have contributed to a booming economy, certainly I want to give that credit, too, in creating the atmosphere for job expansion. So I think that goes hand-in-hand with welfare reform, it goes hand-in-hand with the job creation parts of our tax reduction bills. I think at this point, let me just see if I can conclude my part of this special order, if my friend will permit, and he is standing by, I think, with a very important part that my colleagues are able to look at. Mr. Speaker, I hope that the American people will contact us, will contact me and our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, both houses of this Congress during the coming days of this welfare reform debate, and let us know if they support the concepts that my friend has right beside him, there. Would they like their Member of the House of Representatives to vote for a piece of legislation that promotes work, something that has been the very foundation of this country for over 200 years, to strengthen the path towards independence for families, independence from the need to receive a welfare check from the government? Secondly, I hope our constituents will talk to all of our colleagues, Mr. Speaker, about the importance of improving child well-being. We have lifted over 2 million children out of poverty. As I said earlier tonight, let us lift 1 more million children out of poverty. Let us let that be our bold goal in this debate. Thirdly, it would be to promote healthy marriages and strengthen families. I hope we will hear from our constituents and from our fellow Americans about that, Mr. Speaker. And then, finally, the fourth Republican principle of welfare reform: fostering hope and opportunity to boost personal incomes and improve the quality of life, and permit more of our fellow American citizens to grab hold of that great American dream. I hope we will hear from our constituents. I hope we will have a healthy debate among our fellow Americans on the floor of this House. I look forward to it. Once again, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from South Carolina, for his excellent leadership in this regard.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. The previous speaker, the gentleman from South Carolina, mentioned bridging the gap, and that is really what the TANF program is all about, the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. The problem with the old system is that the gap was so long, so large, it seemed that we never built a bridge over it and we never got to the end result of actually moving these American citizens from the welfare rolls of receiving a check from the taxpayers on to the job rolls. So that is one of the really excellent things about this new approach and the reason that we need to work harder to reauthorize it and make it work better. But Mr. Speaker, it takes leadership and it takes a bit of courage to effect change in this city of Washington, D.C., and in this Federal Government. There is a certain amount of inertia there. Whenever we try to do something bold, as this Congress did back in 1996 in passing welfare reform, the opponents always try to bring out what I call the ``parade of horribles,'' all of the terrible things that are going to happen to our fellow citizens if we do this sort of thing. I can recall the stern warnings that we received from some of our friends, the opponents of this legislation, when we were considering it back in 1995 and then in 1996. As the gentleman knows, it was vetoed by the Clinton administration first before we were able to finally push it through in 1996. But among the opponents of this legislation, Mr. Speaker, one person said, and I quote, ``The people who do this will go to their graves in disgrace.'' Well, certainly, that is a charge that we had to face, and any time we have the possibility of new public policy, we know that it might fail, but we knew in our hearts that it would succeed, and we certainly do not believe that we will go to our graves in disgrace. I think the author of that remark, Mr. Speaker, probably would not want to come forward and take ownership of that particular quote. Another said, ``In 5 years time, you will find appearing on your streets abandoned children, helpless, hostile, angry, awful; the numbers we have no idea.'' I am almost sorry that the gentleman from South Carolina took the last poster down because, of course, it showed not only a more than 15 percent cut in welfare rolls, but also approximately a 50 percent reduction in childhood hunger and childhood poverty. Just a third quote from this ``parade of horribles'' that we had back in 1995 and 1996. One member of the other body said, and I quote, ``The central provision of this law, the 5-year cash benefit limit, would be the most brutal act of social policy we have known since the reconstruction.'' Well, indeed, we were able to look past those unfounded charges and move toward really one of the tremendous success stories, I think, of the last 50 years. I am just so pleased to have been a part of it. I want to commend the leadership of the House of Representatives and of the Senate back during those days of 1995 and 1996 who had the courage to withstand these sorts of unfounded charges, move the bill through time and again, past a veto on two occasions, and on to the desk of the President where it was finally signed into law. We have seen the great results of it. So once again, we may find ourselves in that sort of debate. I do not know, Mr. Speaker, what exactly we will be hearing from the opponents of this approach. But I dare say that we may have to, once again, show some courage. This time, though, we will be able to point to the great successes that we have had.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I want to take my 1 minute to talk about the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, one of the greatest public policy successes in half a century. This body will soon have the opportunity to continue the remarkable progress made over the past 6 years when we reauthorize the law. Our Nation has seen a dramatic 56 percent drop in welfare caseloads as more families have broken the cycle of poverty and replaced welfare checks with paychecks. Welfare rolls are at their lowest levels since 1965, and more than 2 million children have been rescued from poverty, a remarkable success. The reauthorization will allow us to build on the principles which have helped more Americans achieve self-reliance. It contains a strong work requirement, continues the focus on protecting children, and strengthening families, and gives more States flexibility. Mr. Speaker, the emphasis on work and strengthening families in this new initiative represents a winning formula to put more needy Americans on the path toward a brighter future.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Florida for taking out this special order. I understand actually we will be back to back, two special orders tonight, and I wanted to come down to the floor, Mr. Speaker, because it is important that this special order be bipartisan, and it is important that the clear message go out, not only to our colleagues, but to everyone around the world within the sound of our voices, to make it clear that on a bipartisan basis, Republicans, Democrats, the House and the Senate, this Nation supports the country of Israel, the only really true democracy in the region, a steadfast friend and ally of the United States for over half a century, and that message needs to be stated in unequivocal bipartisan terms in this House of Representatives tonight. I am so glad and encouraged, my colleague from California mentioned that there are a lot of knowledgeable people about this issue. I do not know that I would count myself as one of the overly knowledgeable people among my colleagues, but I have been to Israel, and I have studied the history, and I am very, very pleased that my friend from Florida started out his remarks with a very detailed history of the region. Because of the importance of the first map that he brought forward, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to bring it over to my side of the aisle, and once again, point out to my colleagues a bit of the history of the area. I think there are some people watching this issue around the Nation and also around the world who might believe or have us believe that somehow the lines of the nations were drawn and set in concrete back during the time when the super powers of this world decided to impose an Israeli state or a Jewish state upon the region, and that everybody was all set and we kind of came in with Israel and upset the apple cart there in the region. As this map demonstrates, nothing could be further from the truth. Back during the time of the British Mandate, 1920, post-World War I, as this map indicates, there was no Lebanon. Syria was part of the French Mandate. Iraq was part of the British Mandate. Saudi Arabia was not yet recognized as a Nation at the time, and we had this area that is described here as Palestine or the British Mandate, and then my friend from Florida described how that was divided by the very tiny Jordan river. If my colleagues have ever been to Israel, they know it is just really not much more than what we would call a small creek where I come from, but it was divided there into Trans-Jordan, which later became the nation of Jordan. So everything was in flux at the time the country of Israel was being anticipated there. They have a right to exist. The international community has recognized for over half a century that Israel has a right to exist, and we need to acknowledge right here on the floor of this House of Representatives that our friends, the Israelis, are under attack at this very moment, have been since a year and a half ago, and their very existence is being challenged by those who would like to wipe them off the face of the Earth. Mr. Speaker, we need to make the strong statement on a bipartisan basis that this country is going to resist those terrorists who would not even acknowledge the right of Israel to exist as a nation. I am happy to stand with Republicans and Democrats tonight on that principle. Israel is a democracy. Israel has become a driving economic miracle in the desert over the past half century, and they are due a lot of credit. They have been our friend and we have been their friend, when this country has needed it and when Israel has needed it. If there is one signal that we need to send as a matter of foreign policy, it is that this Nation is steadfast in supporting its friends, and we count Israel as among those friends. I appreciate my colleagues acknowledging that while Israel has a right to exist, there will be a Palestinian state under the right conditions, and that compromises will have to be made. But tonight we are making the strong statement of support for Israel.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, in 2002, more than 1.2 million Americans will hear the words ``You have cancer.'' More than 500,000 Americans will lose their battle with this terrible disease. Oncology nurses are on the front lines in the battle against cancer. Every day, they see the pain and suffering caused by cancer. They understand the physical, emotional, and financial challenges that cancer patients face throughout their life. The Oncology Nursing Society is the largest organization of oncology health professionals in the world with more than 30,000 registered nurses and other health care professionals. There are three chapters of the ONS in my home state of Mississippi located in Brandon, Ocean Springs, and Tupelo. These chapters provide important benefits and services to oncology nurses throughout Mississippi. This week more than 5,000 oncology nurses from around the country have traveled to Washington, DC, to attend the Oncology Nursing Society's 27th Annual Congress. This year's theme is aptly titled ``The Many Faces of Oncology Nursing.'' The attendees will increase their knowledge of the newest cancer treatments, learn the latest developments in cancer nursing research, and enhance their clinical skills. In addition, approximately 550 of these nurses, representing 49 states, will come to Capitol Hill to discuss issues of concern to oncology nurses. I encourage my colleagues to meet with these nurses and to listen to the expert advice of these expert health care professionals. I commend the Oncology Nursing Society for all of its efforts and leadership over the last 27 years and I thank the Society's members for their ongoing commitment to improving the quality of care for all cancer patients and their families.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to say I appreciate my friend, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), frankly acknowledging that the bill that is before us today is different from the one that he has been advocating in the past. I wonder, Mr. Chairman, however, if this has sunk in on the American people, the fact that this is a substantially different bill and it was changed at midnight last night to accommodate certain votes that were needed to enact the legislation. One of the more egregious changes is the creation of a giant loophole in the so-called soft money ban. Under the Shays-Meehan amendment, Members of Congress would be allowed to raise soft money from 501(c) organizations. Now, these are special interest groups that have a legitimate place in our society. However, if the Shays proposal is enacted as it is now before us, the use of 501(c) organizations will drastically change. Last year we all remember one ad from a 501(c) coordinated organization in the Presidential campaign. The ad focused on the horrific death of a young man in Texas and criticized then-candidate Bush for not supporting a proposal regarding hate crimes. By creating this loophole regarding special interest groups, sham 501(c) organizations will be popping up all over the country to funnel soft money to campaigns. Members will be able to get their biggest contributors to say, ``I know of a good government group that is involved in voter education. Would you please donate a million dollars to this good government group?'' And then the good government group gets involved in voter education and politics in that Congressman's district, aiding or abetting the Congressman's campaign. Remember previous finance reforms? They were supposed to fix our campaign system; instead they created new loopholes. Mr. Chairman, this is a brand new loophole created at midnight last night. I urge my colleagues to oppose this Shay substitute for that very reason.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).