E. Shaw

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Florida Lighthouse Day 2006, which will be celebrated on September 16, 2006, at Hillsboro Inlet Lighthouse which is located in my district. This lighthouse was first proposed for Hillsboro Inlet in 1851, although funding did not become available until the early 1900's. The lantern room and cupola were displayed at the 1904 St. Louis Exposition prior to the final construction which lead to the lighthouse being completed and lit in 1907. The light from the Fresnel lens could be seen for 25 miles. This was the last onshore lighthouse built in Florida and it remains in service today. In 1992, the rotation mechanism failed in the lantern and the US. Coast Guard planned to retire the original Fresnel lens. This action would have destroyed the historical integrity of the lighthouse. I was pleased to work with the Hillsboro Lighthouse Preservation Society, local U.S. Coast Guard personnel and the Coast Guard Auxiliary to facilitate the agreement to restore the lens. On August 18, 2000, I was honored to speak at the re-lighting ceremony hosted by the Hillsboro Lighthouse Preservation Society. In 2003, the Hillsboro Lighthouse was chosen to represent Florida lighthouses by the U.S. Postal Service on their lighthouse stamp series. Mr. Speaker, I also want to give special recognition today to the members of the Hillsboro Lighthouse Preservation Society. Established in 1997, this organization is dedicated ``to promote the history of the Hillsboro Lighthouse Station and the Hillsboro Inlet area through preservation of structures and artifacts, education and public access tours.'' I look forward to joining my friends this Saturday as we celebrate Florida Lighthouse Day 2006.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased and I am most honored today to welcome Rabbi Amy Rader and her family here to Washington, DC. Rabbi Rader is an excellent leader and role model for the Jewish community, and for people of all beliefs. I proudly nominated her to share her faith and offer her prayers for our country on the House floor this morning, and I thank her for coming. After having studied in both Jerusalem and Los Angeles, Rabbi Rader was ordained by the Jewish Theological Seminary of America in New York City in 1999. Rabbi Rader also served as the rabbi for the Lakeland Hills Jewish Center in New Jersey, and was the first Jewish chaplain at Methodist Hospital in her hometown of Minneapolis. Rabbi Rader is now an associate rabbi at B'nai Torah Congregation in Boca Raton, where she directs their Mitzvah program. In her 4 years in the Boca Raton community, Rabbi Rader has earned a reputation as a compassionate pastoral counselor as well as an inspiring teacher and lecturer. I am honored to have her here with us today.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Very briefly in reply to the last speaker, the facts contradict the information that was put out here on the floor regarding the deficit. The United States' exports to Jordan are up 90 percent since the free trade agreement; up 92 percent to Chile since 2003; up 25 percent to Singapore since 2003; up 11 percent to Australia since 2004; up 7\1/2\ percent to Morocco. Under NAFTA, our exports have increased at 133 percent. That just does not make sense. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe). (Mr. KOLBE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, we have another speaker who just came to the floor, Mr. Hensarling of Texas, to whom I yield 2 minutes. Following that, I would yield to the minority so they can close, and then we will go to closing.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I cannot stress enough the importance of the legislation that is now before this body. Yes, this agreement is a good economic agreement for those doing business in Oman. In fact, it is one of the best free trade agreements that this body has considered, granting the United States some of its broadest market access ever, and establishing a strong standard as we push to open the large, emerging Middle East market through a Middle East Free Trade Area. I am particularly pleased that my home State of Florida will receive duty-free treatment on much of its citrus products. However, while the economics of United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement are compelling, I believe that there are more important issues for the Members to consider as they cast their votes today. Specifically, what that vote will tell the people of Oman and, perhaps most importantly, the people throughout the violent Middle East as the conflict today threatens to spark a new war. Mr. Moran spoke quite eloquently of the dangerous neighborhood that Oman is in, right across the straits from Iran. I was just handed a CNN report that just came out within the last hour in which Assistant Secretary of State Chris Hill said that the Iranians were believed to be present at North Korea's July 4 missile test. I wonder why. As Chairman Thomas indicated, Oman has long been a strong ally of the United States. Yet beyond that, Oman has also been a leader in its relationships with Israel. Oman has no law that establishes or enforces primary, secondary, or tertiary boycotts of Israel. In the context of congressional consideration of this free trade agreement, Oman has reiterated its commitment to not enforce any aspect of a boycott on Israel in letters of September 28, 2005 and June 15, 2006. Last month, Oman issued an official government document to its relevant agencies, again reiterating the policy and commitment. If any Member still has any doubt, they should know that in the recognition of the importance of this issue by both the United States Trade Representative and the Government of Oman, language was included within the Statement of Administrative Action that the United States Trade Representative will monitor and report to us on this issue. On June 28, 2006, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, known as AIPAC to the Members of Congress, wrote to me in support of the language, and I am pleased with its inclusion and Oman's position on the boycott. After these repeated assurances and Oman's longstanding record, Member representations that Oman is not fully committed on this issue ignore the facts and are fundamentally disrespectful of one of the greatest allies for peace and against terror in the world. That some Members have maintained these claims and even sent Dear Colleague letters on this issue, after receiving the letter from AIPAC, receiving direct assurances from Oman officials, and seeing the text of the official Omani documents stopping any boycott, is disgraceful, and I believe that Oman deserves an apology. While Oman's action in this area alone sends a powerful message to this part of the world, Oman actually has a history of going beyond, to actual engagement. After the signing of the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty in 1979, Oman was one of the few Arab countries that did not break off relations with Israel. It was also one of the first countries in the region to host an Israeli Prime Minister, when Prime Minister Rabin visited Oman in 1994. In its letter to me and to the ranking member of the Trade Subcommittee, AIPAC stated, ``The breakdown of these kinds of economic barriers can, hopefully, help lead to the development of important political relationships between Israel and the Arab world.'' I could not agree more. As we watch hostilities in the Middle East and they continue to worsen, it is through economic relationships such as these that we can have the best chance to win the hearts and minds of the future leaders in the Middle East. As young workers in the region begin to see the benefits of participating in the worldwide economy, they are more likely to pick up tools to better their lives, rather than tools of destruction. Will passage of this agreement cause an immediate end to hostilities in Israel, Lebanon, Gaza, Iraq, or Afghanistan? No. But none other than the 9/11 Commission has specifically highlighted the importance of Middle East free trade agreements in fighting terror. The free trade agreement will continue to undermine the arguments that terrorists use in recruiting. With increased economic opportunities will come an increased incentive to remain a peaceful, active participant in society. Oman has been a leader in this region in its friendship with the United States, its friendship with Israel, its commitment to political and labor reforms, and its desire to work economically with the United States. It is now up to the Members of the House of Representatives whether to reward the leadership or reject it based on politics and arguments that have no basis in fact. Let me run through a few of the arguments that have been made here today. We have talked about American workers. The United States International Trade Commission estimates that the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement would have almost no effect on U.S. imports from Oman, while resulting in a 5 to 14 percent increase in U.S. exports to Oman. Are you for the American worker? Then you are for increased American exports. We have heard people trashing the labor standards. I heard one of the speakers complain that the management was one of the union representatives. Well, we keep talking about labor relations in this body. One of those provisions provides that management shall be part of the unions, and the managers that were participating in those negotiations were elected by the workers. Are you as Members of Congress going to tell them they can't have their own elected representatives? I don't think so. And whether it be management or the guy on the assembly line, that is what they want and that is what they should have. We have also heard a lot about port security. The United Arab Emirates does not have a free trade agreement with us, so the problems that we opposed with regard to that did not come out of any particular agreement. As a matter of fact, with Oman, as it is now, without a free trade agreement, it is exactly the same as United Arab Emirates. But let me read something from the agreement. You don't have to take my word for it. This is what the agreement says. 21.2 says: ``Nothing in this agreement shall be construed to preclude a party from applying measures that it considers necessary for the fulfillment of its obligations with respect to the maintenance or restoration of international peace or security or the protection of its own essential security interests.'' The Congressional Research Service said: ``Should the United States, whether through CFIUS or congressional action prevent Oman companies from establishing `landside aspects of port activities,' it would appear that such a measure could be justified pursuant to the essential security exception. While it is theoretically possible for Oman to bring a legal challenge to the actions of the United States before a third-party tribunal, the United States would appear to be on solid legal grounds for asserting not only that the panel does not have the legal authority to determine the validity of such a matter, but also that the inconsistent measure is permitted and justifiable given the broad self-judging,'' self judging, ``language of the national security exception.'' So that national security interest has absolutely no legal standing at all. I know of no legal authority, and I am sure if there was one, that would have been brought out in this debate. Yesterday, we had a very fine debate, and this debate was about our friendship with Israel. It was about the dangers that Israel is facing. It was about our support of Israel. Now we have another vote today, and that vote is about one of the best friends that Israel has in the region. And for us to vote them down would not only be an insult to them, but I believe would be an insult to Israel. I would urge all Members of this body to think for yourself, is this a good agreement? Don't follow your party line. Vote for yourself, what you think. You are sent here to represent your constituency. Represent them and cast a vote today that is going to mean something. We aren't puppets around here. Each one of us represents a particular congressional district and we should vote that district. Vote for the people that sent us here.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), the chairman of the terrorism committee.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan). I would like to, before I yield the floor to him, point out that my friend from Maryland brought up the United Arab Emirates debacle that he and I both opposed very much. We don't have a free trade agreement with the United Arab Emirates, so a free trade agreement in no way facilitated that action. I now yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. SHAW. Unless someone else comes to the floor, I will be the final speaker and close.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of the bill.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to associate myself with the previous speaker and his remarks. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my steadfast support for Israel during this time of crisis and escalating violence. In the strongest possible terms, I condemn Hezbollah's unprovoked attack on Israel. On July 12, 2006, Hezbollah assaulted northern Israel. This attack killed eight soldiers and took two others hostage. The kidnapping and killing of Israeli soldiers symbolizes a clear act of war by Hezbollah, which the government of Lebanon has failed to take apart and has even included in its cabinet. Hezbollah's continued violence against Israel is financed and supported by Syria and Iran. The United States Department of State said that Iran supports Hezbollah with financial, political and organizational aid, while Syria provides diplomatic, political and logistic support. Syria and Iran should be held responsible for the violence that has ensued in the region as a result of their support of Hamas. Like the United States and other sovereign nations, Israel has the right to defend itself and its people from the attacks by these terrorists. Hezbollah fired at least 100 rockets at Israel just yesterday, with an estimated 720 Hezbollah rockets reported fired since the current crisis began. Israel air strikes continue and Israel defense forces conducted cross-border raids overnight. Over 230 Lebanese and 25 Israelis have been reported killed since hostilities began. Estimates of Lebanese displaced by the violence vary widely, from tens of thousands to as many as 400,000. Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the United States must continue our efforts to support the State of Israel. These are the same killers who blew up our Marine barracks in Lebanon and killed 260 of our finest United States Marines. An Israeli win is a win for the United States. Our future, as well as Israel's future, is wrapped up in the future of this conflict. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), who has a different view of welfare reform as the Governor of a State who did a tremendous job in that capacity at the time we were changing welfare reform and the way it served America.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English).

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it is amazing, the gentleman who just left the well, when he would say this is a partisan resolution. I don't think the Republican name is in this resolution whatsoever. It is a figment of his imagination. This was a team effort. President Clinton did sign this bill. This is not a partisan resolution. So why don't you join with us and rejoice in what we have accomplished. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would remind the gentleman in the well that it is rare today that people work for minimum wage. But those who do earn $10,700 a year, they also get an earned income tax credit of $4,000. They also get food stamps worth $2,000. They get rent subsidies which varies. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the gentlewoman who just spoke that the poverty rate among children has dropped 13 percent since the passage of this resolution, and, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I don't know quite where to start in correcting the gentleman from Washington. First of all, he said that we didn't increase child care. Well, we had just done over a $1 billion increase, and that is just within the last few months. I would say that the gentleman's memory is a little short. He also talked about a secret Republican agenda. I was in charge of this bill 10 years ago, and I insisted that we did not do any of that. In fact, I don't know of anybody that was trying to do that. I maintained that we had to keep up the food programs, we had to keep up the Medicaid payments, taking care of the health care. We had to take care of the kids. We had to produce child care, in addition to all of this and all of the other programs that go along with the poverty program. But what did we expect? We expected people to climb out of poverty. We are going to help them, but they are going to help themselves. The problem of those who still oppose welfare reform is they have no faith. They didn't have any faith in the human spirit. We did have faith in the human spirit, and I can tell you the real champions, the real heroes of welfare reform are those who pull themselves out of poverty. It is not the Members of Congress or the Senate that are sitting on this floor. It is the single mom, and she is the hero. We started this program about 15, 16 years ago. We worked hard on it for many, many years. At every turn, we recognized the fragile nature of those that we were trying to rescue. Oh, we had a poverty program that was being guarded so carefully by those that wanted to pay people not to work, not to get married and have kids, the most destructive behavior you could possibly have. I remember when we came to this floor and debated this bill. Some of the comments that were made back then, and I will read one of the worst ones, and I won't even mention the Member's name because I think it is so bad. It says: read the proposal, read the small print, read the Republican contract. They are coming for our children, they are coming for the poor. They are coming for the sick, the elderly and the disabled. That is the stuff we were listening to on this floor when we were on a rescue mission. Through the debate on July 18, 1996, after several of the Democrat Members, some of whom have spoken today, spoke against the bill, President Clinton announced that he was coming on to television. We retired back into the Cloakroom to see what he was going to say. He looked right into the TV cameras, and he said, I am going to sign this bill. Well, that brought about some Democratic votes, and it made it truly a bipartisan bill. Since then, the statistical information that is out there is history. Let me run down just some of the things that welfare reform has accomplished. Welfare caseloads are now down by 64 percent, as nearly 8 million parents and children no longer receive welfare. The overall poverty rate dropped 7 percent, the child poverty dropped 13 percent, the poverty rate of young children in female-headed families, the group most likely to go on welfare, dropped 15 percent from 1996 to 2004. Compared with 1996, 1.4 million fewer children lived in poverty in 2004. That is a victory. That is a victory for the human race. That is a victory for the poor Americans. The number of adults on welfare who work has more than doubled since welfare reform. More broadly, the work of all never-married mothers has surged 34 percent since 1996. I will never forget, at one of our hearings, and I think, Mr. McDermott, you were there, when one of the welfare workers came in and was bragging about one of her clients who went to school. One of the young kids had gone to school, and he raised his hand to get the attention of the teacher. The teacher finally looked down and said, What do you want? He says, My momma went to work today. What a wonderful thing. That mother who had nothing to do all day but sit around for the postman to come and bring her a check is now a role model for that child. What a difference that this has made. Yes, this was a rescue program. We paid a lot of money for job training and things in order to accomplish this welfare reform package, and it has worked. I can tell you I was stunned when the President said he was going to sign it, because all of a sudden I realized, my God, look what we have done, look what we have done. Now I can look back with great pride and see what this Congress did, what we accomplished, that rescue mission that took so many people out of poverty. Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of the bill.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials with regard to H.J. Res. 86.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.J. Res. 86. According to the State Department, the Burmese military regime has resisted all international pressure to enact meaningful political reforms and create true democracy. In response, for many years now, the United States has imposed sanctions, including banning all imports from Burma. Additionally, we have prohibited exportation of financial services from the United States to Burma and have targeted the regime itself by freezing certain assets. Today the passage of this resolution is necessary to extend for 1 year the import restrictions enacted within the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003. On February 7, 2006, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Christopher Hill, testified that these sanctions are ``an essential component of our strategy.'' He went on to say that ``they serve as a constant reminder to the regime, and everyone else concerned with Burma, that its behavior is unacceptable, and that regime leaders will remain international pariahs as long as they continue this behavior.'' As chairman of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade, I do not support trade sanctions lightly. However, Burma has not taken the necessary steps to warrant lifting these sanctions. The Burmese regime claims it is implementing its so-called road map to democracy, but in truth it is taking no such steps. The State Department has found that the delegates charged with creating the constitution that this democracy would be built upon are all hand-picked supporters of the current regime. Additionally, pro- democracy advocates remain imprisoned, and military conflicts continue with internal groups. Perhaps most disturbing are reports that Burma's human rights record continues to worsen. In 2005, security forces in the country continued to rape and murder Burmese citizens, force them into slave labor, and compel people into serving in militia units to defend the regime that they abhor. Since enactment of the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act, the Treasury Department has blocked over $16.8 million in transactions and frozen hundreds of thousands of dollars of assets belonging to the Burmese regime. The vast majority of democratic opposition within Burma supports the continuation of these sanctions and even welcomes additional actions. It is now incumbent upon all of us to ensure that the ``essential component'' Assistant Secretary Hill referenced remains in place until this murderous regime yields to the desire of its citizens to be free. To back down now would send the wrong message to the military regime in Burma as well as the international community. Most importantly, it would send the wrong message to those pro-democracy advocates within Burma fighting for the freedom of their fellow citizens. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me today in supporting this important measure and vote ``aye'' on H.J. Res. 86. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.