E. Shaw

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's comments. And I know his family well and his kids, and we are going to be working to help them together with mine. And, by the way, I now have 14 grandkids and another one on the way. So the gentleman can see I am going to be working overtime. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez), a new member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for a very enlightened presentation. It certainly contributed very much to sharing with our colleagues the full extent of the problem and making it personal in the way he did, because that is the way it should be for every Member of this body. I now yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), a freshman member.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for a most insightful commentary and also the research that the gentleman did, which I think is terribly important, when we try to show that we do need and we can get and we have got thinking on the other side of the aisle that we need to bring aboard. I am now proud to yield to a new Member, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for a very well-prepared and well-documented statement. I would like to close with a couple of quotes. The first is I would like to quote President Clinton at Georgetown University on February 9 of 1998. This is an exact quote. He said, ``So that all of these achievements, the economic achievements, our increasing social coherence and cohesion, our increasing efforts to reduce poverty among our youngest children, all of them are threatened by the looming fiscal crisis in Social Security.'' The looming fiscal crisis in Social Security. I could not express it better. President Bush, in this hall on February 2, just a couple of weeks ago said, ``One of America's most important institutions, a symbol of the trust between generations, is also in need of wise and effective reform. Social Security was a great moral success of the 20th century, and we must honor its great purposes in this new century. The system, however, on its current path is headed towards bankruptcy. And so we must join together to strengthen and save Social Security.'' We must join together to strengthen and save Social Security. We have been made a steward of this great country, the greatest country that has ever been on the face of this Earth, in keeping the promise of Social Security far into the future and giving millions of seniors the dignity, the peace that they so richly deserve. Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for this time in which we can present this most important message, this message that crosses generations, the Greatest Generation to the youngest generation. It is time for this Congress to come together. I am disappointed that we have not seen participation in this effort from the other side of the aisle. Perhaps it will be coming, because Americans deserve nothing less from their elected representatives, Democrats and Republicans, than to save this most important program to keep our kids and our grandkids in their senior years, and make it so that they can live in dignity and not in poverty.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate International Customs Day and show support for all the men and women in the Department of Homeland Security who enforce our customs laws. They deserve our gratitude and appreciation. International Customs Day marks the day that the World Customs Organization (WCO) commenced its first meeting on January 26, 1953. This date has grown in significance through the years as we better appreciate the services performed by customs agencies around the world. These agencies keep the world economy running smoothly by facilitating the movement of imports and exports even during this time of heightened security. The WCO evolved out of the Customs Cooperation Council (CCC), which initially was a loose conglomeration of a few members. The CCC member countries were dedicated to establishing uniform rules among the varying customs services as a way of expediting the trade process. After the number of participating members surged, the CCC renamed itself the World Customs Organization to stress the true international nature of the organization. Its current membership is 164 countries, indicating the marked dedication in the international community to the harmonization of these processes to hasten the growth of the trade facilitation process. Our own agency for customs matters has been evolving for years to meet the ever growing demands of our country. After the world dramatically changed on September 11, 2001, the United States had to reevaluate its mechanisms to facilitate the free, yet secure, movement of trade across our borders. The new offices of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) were formed within the Department of Homeland Security and remain instrumental in assuring that our border remains safe, yet open to the free transfer of goods and services which support our American workers, consumers, and industries. Thus, CBP has launched an innovative program entitled Project Shield America, which integrates trade with homeland security issues by seeking to prevent the trafficking of dangerous weapons into the United States by illegal exporters, in addition to preventing the illegal export of certain goods and commodities. At the same time CBP is continuing its work with the WCO to harmonize and unify the various customs rules which affect international commerce. Similarly, ICE has undertaken the Cornerstone project, which investigates intellectual property crime, trade fraud, and financial crime. It also participates in the coordination of the Intellectual Property Rights Coordination to protect against violations of intellectual property rights. Levels of trade are at an all-time high, with imports at $664 billion and $12.2 billion in duties collected. The effective operation of customs operations is essential. Thanks to the great strides undertaken by our customs officials and by importers and exporters, 95 percent of FY 2004 entries sampled were found to be compliant with U.S. trade laws. In the 108th Congress the Committee on Ways and Means examined the changing role of CBP and ICE in our hearing on Customs Budget Authorizations and Other Customs Issues. The Committee will continue its oversight over how CBP and ICE can effectively expedite the movement of goods and services while maintaining the safe borders we as Americans undoubtedly depend upon. I appreciate this opportunity to personally thank the men and women of Customs for their hard work in continuing to strengthen these vital trade relationships and their vigilance in protecting our borders. I commend their dedication to their role of border protection while continuing to fulfill their long-established mission of trade facilitation.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, in listening to this debate, which I have followed very closely, and listening to the previous speaker from California, I agree with most everything that has been said. However, you cannot judge a bill by what is not in it. You judge it by what is in it. You cannot win a ball game by designing each play for a touchdown. You move the ball down the field. This is just one piece of legislation, a very important piece, which is going to come together next year, and we are going to complete the work with illegal immigration. Do not say this bill is not tough on illegal immigration. We are putting 2,000 more agents each year on the border under this bill. This bill does a lot for us, and all of the other things we have been talking about. It is time to move this forward, come back in the next Congress and pass the rest of it, which has already passed this House by 68 percent, as the gentleman from California said. Vote ``yes'' on this most important bill.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Wisconsin just delivered a speech of several minutes expressing frustration as to how the House is run. I want to stand today to express appreciation for the expeditious way in which the House, with the full cooperation of the minority and the majority, has brought help to those who are suffering in the States of Florida, Georgia, Alabama and all through the terrible path that these hurricanes have taken. Too seldom do Members in this body get up to say thank you, but on behalf of the residents of Florida and all of those who have been made homeless or have lost substantial property due to the hurricane, I want to express my appreciation for the expeditious way in which this matter has been brought through the House of Representatives. I especially want to point out and thank my chairman, Congressman Bill Young, whose hand has worked this through in such a marvelous way and the gentleman from Wisconsin, who has given his complete cooperation to the gentleman from Florida in order to see that relief is delivered. It does show the compassion of all of the Members on both sides of the aisle for those who suffer. On behalf of the people of the State of Florida, thank you.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 10, the 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act and the provisions included in the legislation that ensure the privacy and integrity of Social Security numbers. According to the 9-11 Commission report, ``secure identification should begin in the United States.'' A critical step toward that goal must include safeguarding the Social Security number from theft and misuse. When the Social Security number--commonly known as the ``SSN''--was created 68 years ago, its only purpose was to tract a worker's earnings so that Social Security Taxes could be collected and benefits could be calculated. But today, use of the SSN is rampant. Although SSNs are used for many legitimate purposes, their widespread use has made them very valuable to criminals. Someone who steals your Social Security number can literally steal your identity. Victims can have their credit ruined, be harassed by bill collectors, be denied loans or even be mistakenly arrested because of the identity thief's crimes. And the number of victims is growing. In 2002 almost five percent of Americans were identity theft victims. Worse yet, we have head repeated testimony on how terrorists use identity theft or fraudulently obtained SSNs to gain employment, engage in financial transactions and assimilate into our society. Preventing identity thieves from obtaining SSNs will help to protect Americans and our Nation from this threat. For these reasons I introduced bipartisan legislation, H.R. 2971, the ``Social Security Number Privacy and Identity Theft Prevention Act of 2004.'' This legislation would restrict the sale and public display of SSNs, tighten procedures for issuing new SSNs, and establish penalties for violations. This bill was unanimously approved by the Commission on Ways and Means on July 21, 2004. In addition, because of its far reaching impact, the bill was also referred to the Committees on Financial Services, Energy and Commerce, and Judiciary, whose thorough deliberations are necessary and important. Based on consultation with these committees, several provisions to ensure the privacy and integrity of SSNs have been included in the ``9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act.'' One provision would prohibit States from placing a person's full or partial SSN on a driver's license or ID card. While many States have done this voluntarily, it is only an option in other States. Enacting this provision will help prevent identity theft if a wallet is stolen or lost and help prevent rogue employees from accessing the SSN when a driver's license is presented for ID. Two provisions would tighten the standards for issuing an SSN by preventing fraud in the process of assigning SSNs to newborns and requiring the Social Security Administration to verify birth certificates' authenticity. The Government Accountability Office's investigators showed how easy it would be for identity thieves or terrorists to get an official SSN by submitting a fraudulent birth certificate for a baby, and the Social Security Administration's Inspector General reported on lack of checks and balances and other weaknesses in the process parents use to sign up their newborns for an SSN while still in the hospital. Another provision would limit the number of SSN replacement cards a person may receive to 3 per year and 10 per lifetime. Both the GAO and the SSA Inspector General recommended limiting SSN replacement cards to prevent their misuse by individuals working illegally in the United States or seeking to hide their identities. Finally, two provisions would mandate studies on requiring photo ID when applying for Social Security benefits or an SSN card and on modifying the SSN to help employers identify individuals who are potentially not authorized to work in the United States. Some of my colleagues may believe these provisions don't go far enough, and they're right. Providing for uses of SSNs that benefit the public while protecting these numbers from being used by criminals, or even terrorists, is a complex balancing act. There are powerful consumer and commerce benefits from business use of SSNs as a common identifier. It takes time to achieve legislation that is responsible, and balances privacy concerns with concerns over efficiency, but we are making progress. Others would like see the Social Security card become an identification card, adding a photo or other biometric information encoded electronically in the card. Such proposals represent a new purpose for the Social Security card and a new role for the Social Security Administration. We must carefully consider the ramifications of such change, which the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Social Security will explore in hearings early next year. The Social Security number measures in H.R. 10 are important steps in our fight to prevent terrorism. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak just a moment to the comments of my friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer). What he said about the suffering in Africa is absolutely correct, but that has nothing to do with this bill. This bill is about us and our neighbors, and that is what we are talking about here this evening. Florida is bleeding. It is bleeding. We have had tremendous damage all throughout the State. Four hurricanes in one year. There is nobody in this House, there is nobody alive today that can remember the tremendous suffering that one State has suffered because of the hit of four hurricanes. Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, this is what this is about, and our neighbors to the Caribbean. And Haiti, where they have bodies that are still hanging in trees because of the devastation that they have been hit with. These are the people that we are talking about tonight. These are the people that we need to take care of because of this appropriations bill. Mr. Chairman, my friend, the gentleman from St. Petersburg, Florida (Mr. Young), how fortunate we are to have him as chairman and the cooperation of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) that we have gotten. One thing about this Congress, we come together, we come together to bring an end to suffering, to bring an end to the damage and tremendous damage that has been done in the State of Florida and across the southeastern United States. So tonight we will be united in our vote, and I am confident that we will get great support on both sides of the aisle, and I thank the chairman very much for bringing this bill so quickly. This is absolutely unforeseen, the tremendous suffering that we have had in my own home State of Florida, and I urge everyone to vote ``yes'' on this most important bill.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I think people listening to this debate are somewhat totally confused. In reading the motion, I can understand why there is confusion on both sides of the aisle. To begin with, the Democrat motion to instruct the conferees to strike provisions that move jobs overseas, this instruction is absolutely meaningless, because H.R. 4520 does not include any provision that would move jobs overseas. As a matter of fact, quite to the contrary. We lower rates for people or companies that manufacture here in the United States. Let me just take one provision of the motion to instruct. It says: ``shall include the provision of the Senate amendment not included in the House bill to ensure that the rate reduction will not be available to income attributed to cost savings resulting from purchasing imported parts for outsourcing labor overseas.'' Now, how in the world are companies going to be able to operate in trying to segregate exactly what that means? Does that mean for the purchase of the agreement, the purchase of the parts? What if those parts are not even available here in the United States, and it is a question of just shopping the world market to find these parts? And then, is it going to include the effect of installation of those parts in the final product? It is totally unreasonable. We need to fight in this Congress for simplified rules, simplified rules that are fair and understandable. And for us to adopt accounting procedures that are going to make compliance almost impossible does not bring credit upon this body. What we need to do is to work forward and look in the mirror when we start saying, why are jobs moving overseas? Perhaps we are the problem. Perhaps the United States Congress and the Tax Code is the problem. We need to simplify the code. We need to move forward. We need to have a code that is friendly to those who would provide jobs in this country. This motion to instruct does not make a bit of sense, and I would urge all of the Members to vote against it.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, we are coming again to a crossroads, and why it is that we cannot move this bill ahead in an orderly fashion instead of bits and pieces and jumping all around absolutely escapes me. The bill that my colleague from California has crafted which has passed this House now on several occasions increases the child care which is so necessary for the single moms struggling to go to work. We want to be sure their kids are taken care of and they are not in the street, and we have increased the funding substantially. When we look at what we are spending on each welfare recipient, because of the amount of welfare recipients going down and the funding not going down, we are spending well over twice as much on each welfare recipient for job training to get them on their feet and to get them to be productive human beings. This bill and the bill referred to by the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) and the Committee on Ways and Means which has passed this House on several occasions gets to the other side of the Capitol and it is blocked. The other body has constantly talked this bill down and has prevented a vote on the floor of the other body, which is too bad. Mr. Speaker, we are seeing pre-1996 all over again. One of the proudest accomplishments of this body which I can remember so well culminated on August 22, 1996, when the President actually signed the bill. He opposed it and vetoed it twice, but when it got to him the third time, while the debate was going on in this Chamber, went on national television and indicated his support for this bill. And much to his credit, he signed it. It was very controversial then. There were massive resignations within the White House in protest of President Clinton having signed this bill. Much to the credit of those who stayed on, including Ms. Shalala who is now President of the University of Miami where the debates are going to be tomorrow night, although she was opposed to it, she saw to it and did the best to see that it worked, and it did work. It worked not only because we had faith in the human spirit, but also at the end, even though there was bitter partisan bickering to get it to the floor and to get the vote, in the end there was bipartisan support with a Democrat President signing a Republican bill. We can do better. Let us pass this particular bill because we still have the other problem in the other body, but let us move ahead and let us in the next Congress come back and pass the next generation of welfare reform, and that is the bill that the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) has been cosponsoring and working on.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I hear my friend from New York talking about deficits. There is one deficit that he did not talk about, and that is family deficits, the deficit where so many families are struggling and trying to do the right thing, go to work, come home, take care of their kids, and this bill addresses that. I am sure that there are thousands or tens of thousands in the gentleman's district that are going to profit greatly from this bill, and maybe live a little better because of what is in this bill. I think that we need to have a good debate over the issues and not sarcasm. When you get sarcasm involved and talking in broad terms, you are covering over what is in this bill. I would like to go down a few of the provisions in there. It extends family tax relief provisions through 2010. What does that mean? Well, the marriage penalty relief. Everybody is for the marriage penalty relief. I would hope so. The expanded 10 percent income tax bracket. If this does not pass, those brackets are going to go back up, and those are the lowest income tax brackets that we have. The $1,000 tax credit for children. This is tremendously important for working young families. It provides assistance for military families in combat. I have talked to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) about this very issue and he is very much aware of it and very much in favor of it. Because of the technicality of combat pay not being included in income, they lose out on tax credits of this nature, and we correct that for them. No person should be penalized because they are in a combat zone, for God's sake. I would like to talk too about extending relief on the alternative minimum tax. I know my friend from New York is very concerned about the Alternate Minimum Tax. He, as I, would like to do away with the whole thing. I think it is a huge mess. We do take care of it, and provide that people with $58,000 in income a year are exempt from the amount if they are a married couple or $40,250 for a single individual. These are tremendously important. There are other provisions in the bill, such as, of course, the extension of the expiring provisions, which there are some 23 of them listed, and these are available right here at the desk if anybody wants to look at them. I can tell you that almost all of them have great bipartisan support. I do not know of anything in this bill that can be described as a Republican provision. It is a good provision, it is a working provision, and, yes, it is a jobs bill, and it is for hard-working people. There is nothing in here for high income people of any great extent other than the fact that it will help preserve capital, which is something we all should want to do. So I would tell all the Members on both sides of the aisle, before you vote on this, take a close look at it. I would hate to go out and say that I voted to do away with the provision that was extinguishing the marriage penalty. I would hate to go out and say that I was doing away with the $1,000 child credit. These are important to all people. So I urge all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote yes on this bill.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the Social Security so-called totalization agreements permit the United States and another country to coordinate their Social Security programs. The Social Security Administration has totalization agreements in force with 20 countries, including Canada, Australia, and most of Western Europe. Totalization agreements help American workers and American business. These agreements prevent the Americans working overseas for United States companies from having to pay two Social Security systems. As a result, American workers and their companies save approximately $800 million annually in foreign Social Security taxes. Totalization agreements also protect benefits for workers who divide their careers between two countries. In June, the Commissioner of Social Security and Director General of the Mexican Social Security Institute signed a totalization agreement. Now, what does that mean? This agreement has not been approved. The signing of the agreement is the first step in the approval process. The State Department and the White House must review the agreement in order to determine whether the agreement should be sent to Congress for approval. We have no idea at this time whether it will even be sent to us for approval. Congress has the final say. Should the President send a proposed totalization agreement with Mexico to Congress for approval, Congress has 60 legislative days during which either the House or the Senate are in session to consider the agreement and to disapprove it, if necessary. It is imperative that we follow through with the vetting process established in the law, not circumvent it through appropriation legislation. Why? Because there is much concern, confusion, and misinformation about a United States Mexican totalization agreement. We need to hear all the facts. We do not need to rush to judgment. We need regular order. For example, there are a number of advantages in a totalization agreement with Mexico. First, an agreement would save about 3,000 United States workers and their employers about $140 million in Mexican Social Security taxes over the next 5 years. Second, Mexico is the second largest trading partner, and a totalization agreement with Mexico would be consistent with one of the goals of the North American Free Trade Agreement, to strengthen cooperation and friendship. Lastly, Social Security's official scorekeepers estimate a U.S.-Mexican agreement would have a negligible impact on Social Security long-term financing. The 5-year cost to the U.S. Social Security system has now been estimated at about $525 million. That is over a 5-year period. Contrary to what many believe, a totalization agreement would not change current law prohibiting payment to persons living illegally in the United States. Also a totalization agreement would not create a substantial enticement for Mexican citizens to work illegally in the United States. That is because the recently enacted Social Security Protection Act of 2004 strengthened the law to prevent those who only worked illegally from receiving benefits. While there are potential advantages to a totalization agreement with Mexico, there are also concerns, and we concede that. For example, Social Security official scorekeepers have stated there is considerable uncertainty involved in their estimates. It could be higher; it could be lower. In addition, there are concerns about the potential for fraudulent receipt of benefits and the integrity of the Mexican records. There are also some issues relating to a potential United States- Mexican totalization agreement that raise serious questions about the impact of the agreement on Social Security financials and drives the need for a full and fair vetting through public hearings held by the committee of jurisdiction, the Committee on Ways and Means Subcommittee on Social Security, which I chair. Only if we allow the vetting process to continue as designated rather than obstructed will the Congress and the American people be assured whether a totalization agreement with Mexico is in the best interests of our Nation's workers and those who depend upon those benefits. For this reason I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), a valuable member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), a very valued member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to remind the previous speaker that when we are talking about a shortfall of $500 million over 5 years in the Social Security, we are saving American workers and American companies $800 million a year. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would say to the previous speaker that this in no way provides for Social Security payments to illegal workers. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart).

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time. There has been a lot said, and it is mostly about illegal immigrants, which has not a darn thing to do with the issue that is in front of us this evening. It would be a mistake for anybody to come down here to the floor and vote for this amendment, thinking that there is some way that without doing this that this is going to support illegal immigration. It does not have anything to do with this. This is a good deal for American workers. It is a good deal for American companies, and it is a good deal that the Congress oppose this particular legislation. Let the committee have a look at it. The committee is going to vet this thing. There is no question about it. The gentleman from Michigan who spoke earlier in the debate talked about how, if the Congress changes this and that, that then all of the sudden they are going to open the floodgates. I am sorry, we cannot pass legislation or pass amendments based upon what we think the Congress might do. I am talking about what the law is, and this has a negligible effect upon the trust fund, and the Congress should look at it. This issue is not before the Congress now. The timing is all wrong. The administration has to send this to the State Department and to the White House for approval, and then we have 60 legislative days in which to kill it, if that is what the Congress wants to; but we should look at it, and we should do it in regular order. We should not be doing it by trying to tie the hands of the government from enforcing something that has not even happened yet. That is just plain malarkey. Vote ``no'' on this amendment, and let the regular process go forward. It has nothing to do with illegal workers receiving Social Security benefits.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) for yielding me this time, and I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member. When a disaster happens in America, we are not Democrats and Republicans, we are Americans, and we care about each other. We suffer with each other, we cry with each other, and we pray with each other. I was taken by a photograph which was in this morning's Fort Lauderdale Sun Sentinel of a woman who had just lost her entire home, and she was on her way to get in line for some ice and water. This tells us how quickly we can lose everything in this world, and how important it is that we as a Nation pull together and come forward with some relief which is so badly needed. Up in the central part of the State, we had Hurricane Frances following Charley, which was described on television as big as the State of Texas. It covered the entire State of Florida, as the chairman correctly pointed out. I also want to be sure that we give proper credit to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, who started putting together this appropriation bill even as the hurricane was still coming ashore, and maybe before that because of Hurricane Charley and the losses we sustained. I know my daughter in DeLand, Florida, ancient, gorgeous oak trees in her back lawn, gone. My son in Orlando, a huge oak tree fell on his house. These things can change lives in no time. I think it is remarkable when we see the expedited process that has been used here, and this has been done because we have got good cooperation on both sides of the aisle. The Speaker has been great to bring this up. Over in the Senate, we will pass this very clean bill in record time, and it will go to the President. This bill will become signed into law before Hurricane Frances has even left the continental United States. In fact, we may be feeling the winds of this storm right here in Washington, D.C., while the President is signing the bill which will give us a bridge to the relief we need. On behalf of all of the people of Florida and the Florida delegation, I thank this House, I thank the Senate and the President of the United States for this expedited procedure. This is remarkable, and it does show that we as Americans deeply care.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of the United States-Morocco Free Trade Agreement pending before us here in this Chamber today. This agreement will provide 95 percent of consumer and industrial products in bilateral trade become duty-free immediately upon entering into this important, historic agreement. The chairman has already indicated that the Senate has passed this bill and it will go right from this Chamber to the President's desk for signature. I strongly concur with Ambassador Bob Zoellick when he stated, ``Our agreement with Morocco is not just a single announcement, but a vital step in creating a mosaic of United States free trade agreements across the Middle East and North Africa.'' This agreement sends a strong message to this particular region of the world. This agreement enables fair and free trade between long- standing allies. In fact, Morocco and the United States signed a Treaty of Peace and Friendship in 1786. The Kingdom has continuously provided military and diplomatic support for United States foreign operations, and this partnership is solid and it is respected. I congratulate President Bush and his Majesty, King Mohammed VI, on this historic Free Trade Agreement. I would like to point out to the gentleman on the other side of the aisle that was speaking about prescription drugs and associate myself with the remarks of the chairman concerning this matter, this House has passed now on two occasions a bill that said that if the Food and Drug Administration can certify that drugs from various countries, namely Canada, are what they are and they are pure and they are not counterfeit, that they can be imported. Under the Clinton administration they said they could not certify that. Under the Bush administration they said they cannot certify that. I think clearly we are going in that direction, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the bill that is before us.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend Joshua Phillips of Coconut Creek, Florida, the 22nd Congressional District's winner of the 2004 annual Congressional Art Competition. When I was first confronted with the complex montage of images that is Joshua's piece, American Aesthetic, I was immediately struck with its creativity and uniqueness. American Aesthetic now adorns the Cannon Capitol tunnel, and I have taken special care to instruct my staff to point it out to tour groups that they lead. Despite being among what is a group of some of the finest pieces of art done by young people in this nation, I am constantly told, and I agree, that Josh's artwork stands alone. Of course, Joshua's achievement should not come as a surprise since he is a young man who has already made a name for himself through his accomplishments as his school's starting defensive end, and in the highly competitive academic program at his high school, Westminster Academy. It is worth noting that Joshua is Westminster Academy's second winner in this competition, proving that its high-quality academic program works to engender the kind of excellence in youth that our nation values. Mr. Speaker, again I would like to extend my congratulations to this extraordinary young man.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, Ambassador Joe Wilson's cover has been blown. He has proclaimed to be a truth-teller, but he has been thoroughly discredited. You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that Ambassador Wilson said President Bush was lying when in the State of the Union address he said the British Government learned that Saddam Hussein sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Last week's bipartisan Senate Select Intelligence Committee report concluded that it actually is Wilson who has been telling us lies. We now know for certain that Wilson was wrong and that Bush's statement was entirely accurate. In September 2003, an independent British parliamentary committee looked into the matter and determined that the claim made by the British intelligence was in fact reasonable. In recent days, the Financial Times has reported that illicit sales of uranium from Niger were indeed being negotiated with Iraq as well as four other states. According to the Financial Times, human and electronic intelligence sources from a number of countries picked up repeated discussions of an illicit trade in uranium from Niger. One of the customers discussed by the traders was Iraq. There is more. The Senate report says fairly bluntly that Wilson lied to the media. The panel found that Wilson provided misleading information to The Washington Post last June, which has created more suspicion around him. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring these developments to my colleagues in the House because they will not read this in the New York Times.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise in very strong support of the Australian Free Trade Agreement. I do not think there is any country in the world that is more loved by Americans than the country of Australia, and I do not think there is any country in the world that can claim greater loyalty to this friendship than Australia and the United States to each other. I would like to congratulate Ambassador Bob Zoellick for the fair and solid trade agreement with this long-time ally and, of course, our own President Bush for pushing forward. Also, I congratulate the Australian Prime Minister John Howard and Ambassador Michael Thawley on their commitment for also securing this agreement. The Australian government has been a long-term friend to the United States through all the world wars and, of course, now in the war on terror and the other wars we have been involved in in Asia. They have been a staunch ally and a great friend, and I guess they are very similar to the Americans, having evolved in a similar way and having gained their independence. I would like to now, for just a moment, to turn our attention to the effects this agreement would have on my own State of Florida. Florida exports shipments of merchandise to Australia. In 2003, it totaled $319 million. That is an increase of 12 percent from 2002. Florida ranks 10th in overall export shipments to the Australian market. Overwhelming amounts of Florida exports are in the manufacturing sector, a sector tremendously important to the United States and Florida. This agreement provides increased access for numerous other Florida sectors which have very positive impact on the State of Florida as well as the entire country. I recommend and endorse this most important and most historic agreement, urge its passage; and as the previous speaker said, this should be a unanimous, if not near unanimous, decision that came out, as I recall, in the full Committee on Ways and Means with a unanimous vote, and it is one of the few truly bipartisan trade agreements that we have seen come through this House in recent years, and I urge its passage.