E. Shaw

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I would like to just review exactly where we are, where we are going, and why we are here. If I understand the way the thing is arranged right now on the substitute, to begin with, I think it is a truism, and I have not heard anybody in this House defend the marriage penalty. It is a tax that taxes people that are married, where there are two wage-earners in a household, more than they would be taxed if they were single. Everyone in this House agrees that that is wrong, and we corrected the situation. But because of a peculiarity in the rules of the Senate, we were only able to do it for 10 years, so we did it for 10 years. Ten years is better than nothing. Now we want to make it permanent. I would say that many Democrats are going to vote with the Republicans in making it permanent. They are not going to turn this over to the Office of Management and Budget. The previous speaker, I think, made a very interesting observation. I am surprised it has not been made many times, at least from this side. Yes, a lot of us did vote for the line-item veto, but the court said that the line-item veto given to the President is unconstitutional because it is giving legislative authority to the executive branch. Whoa, wait a minute. Is that not what we are doing here? Are we not giving the Office of Management and Budget the opportunity to give a huge tax increase simply by a guess that it will make in the year 2010 that the Congress may be spending a little bit of the surplus, or that the surplus may be called into play in order to bring fairness to the Tax Code? I think it is also important to realize that we will not have a surplus after 2017, so we need to get together in a bipartisan way and solve the problems of Social Security so that it will be there after 2017, and we will not have to be too concerned about what the question of the surplus is, because that is going to go away. But returning to the issue here, we are trying to erase a scheduled tax increase in 2010 that the Congress can enact simply by increasing spending and not having to vote to increase taxes. Vote against the substitute; vote for the underlying bill.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I am glad the gentleman suggested that. The way the Social Security trust fund works, the way Social Security works, your FICA and payroll taxes are paid into the Social Security Administration. The money is paid out of the trust funds in order to pay the benefits, the survey benefits, disability benefits, pension benefits. The benefits that come out of Social Security are paid out of the trust fund. The monies that are left then go into the general fund. That is what we call the surplus. This is money that is over and above what is necessary to pay the benefits under Social Security. Surpluses by law are replaced by Treasury bills. These treasury bills are nonnegotiable Treasury bills which are IOUs by the government to the government. Mr. Greenspan testified before the Committee on Ways and Means and said these are really not economic assets. And you can compare them to writing yourself an IOU and declaring that as an asset. It is not an asset. It is simply an IOU by the government to the government. So we will continue to have surpluses, according to the Social Security Administration, until the year 2017. But beginning in 2017, the Congress is going to have to find the money to pay the benefits, whether it increases taxes, whether it cuts benefits, or whether it just simply goes into the red and produces this type of shortfall for the next 60 years. This is what we are facing and this is what future Congresses are facing. Now there is a number of plans that are out there that do address this dilemma that we find ourselves in, and there are some very good plans. The plan that I have developed adds something to Social Security without touching the trust fund, without touching any of the FICA taxes that are going into the Social Security trust fund. And I believe that this is the best way to go. And I have demonstrated through the Social Security Administration that if we were to enact this Social Security Plus Plan that we would not only be able to avoid all of this red ink, we would keep benefits every bit, if not better, than they are today; we could add to it a retirement bonus which would be paid out of these added funds that are being put into the Social Security Administration. It assumes that every dime that goes into this would have to be borrowed and paid back, and not only would they be paid back over the between now and 2075, but it would create a surplus of $1 trillion. Now, this is what we need to leave to our kids; and this is what we need to be able to try to do. Now, you have heard a lot on this floor, they are saying the Bush administration or the Republicans have a secret plan to privatize Social Security. How are you going to privatize something that is looking down the barrel of a $25 trillion deficit? The private sector would not take this unfunded liability over, so that is absolutely ridiculous. The Social Security Administration needs to stay in place exactly as it is today. The American seniors, when they were young workers, they paid into this system their whole working life, and it is not up to this Congress or any Congress to dismantle the Social Security trust fund. It needs to be kept in place exactly as it is today. But we need to add to it, add to it as an add-on, as an addition. And my particular plan, which we have looked at and which I know you have carefully examined, it would take money actually out of the Treasury. No more taxes. But it would take it out of the Treasury under monies that could be borrowed as a bridge and put into individual retirement accounts, not all in one stock as you would hear. As soon as you start talking about individual accounts, everyone starts yelling Enron. Well, if you had one Enron in your portfolio, that would be a danger but this would not allow that. They would be widespread like index funds. And it would only be 60 percent in corporate stocks and it would be 40 percent in corporate bonds. Now, what the Social Security Administration, they did a lookback over the last 75 years which encompasses a depression, a Great Depression, and they said these individual retirement accounts would grow at a rate that would create over 75 years, which would create a $1 trillion surplus. Now, we do not have to adopt this plan. There are other plans out there. But it is time that the Congress quit talking about doing nothing. They say the sky is falling and then they think that is some kind of a joke. This is no joke. This is 2017 which is right around the corner. And we need to start planning for it, whether we use the plan that I have developed or whether they have come forward with another plan. I would be delighted to hear their plan. But this is the only plan that they have put forward among their leadership. Now, I will quickly say that there are a few Members on the other side of the aisle that have developed plans. One of the Members has developed a plan, one of the Democrat Members has joined with a Republican Member in developing a plan which I think you may hear about yet within the next few minutes, and I congratulate him for doing that. But Social Security, and I am thinking of what the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley) was talking about with his grandmother, and in there cleaning all of those rooms every day and paying into a Social Security fund that kept her out of poverty. I am reminded of a statement that was made here on the floor that life was to be enjoyed, not endured. And that is what we need to work with. And all of us know that today's seniors are going to be just fine. Nobody is even thinking about cutting the benefits. But I am also saying we do not have to cut the benefits of tomorrow's seniors either if we start planning ahead today. If you start building on top of the existing plan, not substituting, not taking anything away from it.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. SHAW asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous material.)

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4823) to repeal the sunset of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 with respect to the exclusion from Federal income tax for restitution received by victims of the Nazi Regime.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to be the sponsor of this important piece of legislation, H.R. 4823, the Holocaust Restitution Tax Fairness Act. It exempts Holocaust survivors from taxation any restitution claims they received for the crimes committed against them by Nazi Germany. The bill permanently extends a provision of The Economic Growth and Tax Reconciliation Act that makes such claims tax-free. Like the rest of the tax cut signed into law by President Bush last year, this provision sunsets in 2010. Today we are taking action to provide that for as long as the victims and their heirs receive Holocaust-related claims, they will be tax-free. In recent years settlement agreements worth billions of dollars for Holocaust survivors have been reached. Although no amount of money could ever compensate the victims of the Holocaust for the crimes committed against them, it would be wrong for the United States Tax Code to treat these modest settlements as some sort of financial windfall. Current estimates are that there will be 88,000 Holocaust survivors in 2010 when the tax cuts sunset, many of whom reside in my South Florida district. Congress should be prepared to give these survivors the security of at least knowing that their settlement claims will not be subject to the hands of the Internal Revenue Service. Mr. Speaker, it is as simple as this: When something is stolen from you, you should not be taxed when it is returned. The idea that Uncle Sam might take a bite out of these claims because of the tax cut sunset is real appalling. This bill is supported by the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, the Conference of Jewish Material Claims Against Germany, the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Miami, the American Jewish Committee, the American Gathering/Federation of Jewish Holocaust Survivors, and the International Commission on the Holocaust Era Insurance Claims. I submit these letters of support from the organizations that I have mentioned. Mr. Speaker, this provision must be made permanent, not because it will simplify the tax code, nor will it stimulate our recovering economy, nor do we need to do this because it will directly affect millions of Americans' pocketbooks. This needs to be done because it is right. With that in mind, I urge my colleagues to send a strong message of support to the victims of the Holocaust and their families by voting for this bill. Jewish Council for Public Affairs, New York, May 31, 2002. Hon. E. Clay Shaw, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Shaw: On behalf of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, I am writing to thank you for introducing legislation to repeal the sunset provisions in the last tax package that provides exclusion from federal income tax for restitution payments received by victims of the Nazi regime (H.R. 4823). As you know, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs is the public affairs arm of the organized American Jewish community and serves as the national coordinating body for the 13 national and 122 local agencies comprising the field of Jewish community relations. Holocaust survivors have been receiving various types of compensation payments from Germany and Austria since the 1950s. Although the Internal Revenue Service had issued several rulings exempting certain Holocaust compensation payments from taxation, (such as Rev. Rul. 56-518 and Rev. Rul. 69-212), until last year the Congress had never passed legislation that would provide broad tax exemption for all Holocaust-related payments. Recent efforts to secure compensation payments for former slave and forced laborers who suffered under the Nazi regime, and to obtain restitution of stolen Holocaust-era assets, have and will continue to result in survivors receiving additional payments over the next several years. In light of these developments, there is a need to ensure forever that all compensation and restitution payments received by Holocaust survivors and/or their heirs are not subject to federal taxation. No amount of money can ever compensate Holocaust survivors for the horrors they endured. However, this legislation would at least enable survivors to benefit fully from the token compensation and restitution payments they will receive in the future. Sincerely, Hannah Rosenthal, Executive Director.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield two minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have five legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of H.R. 4823.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, which represents the next crucial step in improving America's transportation security. This bill coordinates various federal law enforcement efforts with local port authorities, provides better communications, and helps pay for technology upgrades and other security infrastructure at our ports. This legislation is of particular importance to the 14 publicly owned deepwater seaports in the State of Florida, including Port Everglades, Port of Palm Beach, and Port of Miami in South Florida. The challenge of protecting against potential threats to security in Florida is unique due to the state's extensive coastline, vigorous international trade, and passenger cruise activities. Our geography dictates that we must be prepared as a front-line homeland defense point against terrorism, as well as illegal immigration, and drug trafficking. Florida seaports represent some of the busiest bulk cargo and container ports in the nation, and improved security at our seaports is critical for protection of the state's citizens and millions of visitors, as well as the state's continued economic vitality. The threat of terrorism and other crimes to Florida seaports has already been documented by the State of Florida as well as each of the Florida seaports. A 1999 state-commissioned study found that the Florida ports are highly vulnerable and recommended comprehensive seaport security plans at each Florida seaport. In 2000, the State of Florida enacted legislation mandating that such plans be undertaken. As the Chairman of the Florida Congressional delegation, I am pleased that this bill does not penalize the Florida ports that have been pro- active in taking the necessary steps to improve security. A shining example of such a port is Port Everglades in my district. Even before September 11, Port Everglades had laid out a comprehensive security improvement plan. Since that day, the port has expedited its efforts, turning a 48 month plan to improve security into an impressive, 12 month, $25 million plan that is now halfway completed. As one of the first House members to introduce seaport security legislation, and the sponsor of the companion to the bill that passed the Senate, I am gratified that the House is taking up this critically important issue. I would like to thank Chairman Young for all his hard work to this point and I look forward to working with him further as we begin discussions with the other chamber. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I would like to congratulate the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp). In his former life as an attorney, he spent a lot of time placing kids out of foster care into loving homes, permanent homes. There is nothing more important I think than to do everything we can to encourage adoption in this country. One of the saddest things that we can possibly see is a child who is not loved, a child that does not have a home to go to or the security of its own room within that particular home; and I applaud the gentleman. I applaud the bipartisanship that we are getting on this bill. I do want to, however, correct one statement that my friend from Maryland made because otherwise he was very practical and very straightforward. The reason that this and the previous bill, Holocaust tax relief, the reason these two pieces of legislation as well as the entire tax bill that they were part of was sunsetted was because it was going over to the Senate on a budget reconciliation bill which required a straight up and down vote, and it was a question of the technicalities of the Byrd rule. The requirement was not put on permanent. It had nothing to do with the size of the entire bill. So I do want to clarify that particular issue, but it is a rare moment and all too rare in matters pertaining to taxes that this House finds itself in total agreement.

Mr. SHAW

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

Mr. SHAW. I thank the gentleman for those comments. I again would like to repeat what Chairman Young said and I think he said it so eloquently: We are fighting our war. We were attacked. This is a time of emergency. If we have to spend some of the Social Security surplus, so be it, but we are not spending one dime of the Social Security trust fund. The Social Security trust fund is secure. The FICA taxes are going to be there to pay every benefit through 2017. The retirees and the disabled in this country have the first call on the Social Security money that comes into the trust fund. Let us get an even and balanced argument here. And for God's sake, why does every Member in this House, in this Chamber, not spend a little time and figure out and learn how the Social Security system works in this country and also recognize the fact that we are looking at a $25 trillion deficit in Social Security if we do not move together in a bipartisan way to reform Social Security. My door is open. As soon as we get any cooperation or see any cooperation from the other side of the aisle, or the other side of this Capitol, we will move and we will save Social Security for our kids and our grandkids. That is important. That is key. But right now we have an emergency, we have been attacked, and this country must react and we must react in a bipartisan way.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, so much has been said on this floor about Social Security that I think somebody has to get up and get the record straight. There have been errors made on both sides, but particularly on the minority side, when they refer to this bill in any way jeopardizing Social Security for our seniors. It is more and more of the same old thing: scare our seniors, scare our seniors. Let me give an example which I think absolutely shows 100 percent that this particular bill in no way endangers Social Security. To begin with, we hear time and time again on this floor that the Republicans are raiding the Social Security trust fund. Mr. Chairman, there is no money in the Social Security trust fund. There are only Treasury bills. The way the Social Security System works is the money that comes into Social Security that is not used to pay benefits goes into the general fund, which is called the surplus, and is replaced in the trust fund with Treasury bills. So anyone getting up and making this statement, it is a great statement to make from a political standpoint, but from a factual standpoint it simply is not true. It is not true. I ask this question of my Democrat friends: In all of the years, the 40-some years they were in charge of this House, and they had deficit spending as far as the eye could see, and I have looked at the chart up there and it shows all the Presidencies that the Democrats keep putting up, during those periods of time, those were Democrat-controlled Congresses. In most of those cases, on both sides, the Senate and the House, those were Democrat. But no President has ever spent one dime that was not specifically appropriated right here in the House of Representatives. That is a fact. So when we start talking about the deficits and we start trying to recreate history, let us look at the real facts. Now, the question comes up, in all of those years did the Democrats raid the Social Security trust fund? No. Did they spend the Social Security surplus? Yes. In part of this are we going to be looking to spend Social Security surplus? Probably so. But that does not in any way endanger Social Security. It simply delays the paying down of the national debt. Now, when did we finally balance the budget in this House? We balanced the budget after the Republicans took control. That is a simple thing and we cannot rewrite the history. The history is very, very clear.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Lighthouse Point Chief of Police, Kim Tierney. As a member of the Lighthouse Point Police Department in Florida, Kim worked her way up through the ranks in almost every capacity of the department since her start in 1982. Throughout her experiences on the force, Kim did not encounter many other women in her line of work. Regardless, I am proud to say that in 2002, Kim has not only persevered in her pursuit of a career in law enforcement, but more so distinguished herself as one of only 150 female police chiefs out of 30,000 in the country. During her tenure with the Lighthouse Point Police Department, Chief Tierney has been responsible for numerous innovations that have catapulted the 47-member department into twenty-first century policing. Her leadership has brought about massive improvements in technology, records management, communications, marine patrol, domestic violence investigations, community policing and bike patrol. Although she began her career at a time when women were not generally accepted into police work, she modeled herself as an exemplary employee and proved her skeptics wrong. Her achievements speak louder than I ever could, here today on her behalf. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to recognize Police Chief Tierney as an outstanding pioneer in her field and in my home district. Let her achievements serve as an example of what is possible for future generations as they consider a career in public service and the noble profession of police work.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I rise in recognition of National Police Week. This year, we honor our law enforcement officers during the week of May 13th. Police officers from all over the nation have assembled in Washington to honor their fallen brethren with this year's National Peace Officers' Memorial Service. This year, Mr. Speaker, National Police Week comes with a greater sense of pride and reflection. Following the tragic events on September 11th, our nation's law enforcement officers were thrust onto the front lines as America quickly focused on our national security. Our nation was quickly reminded of these dedicated men and women committed to preserving and protecting public safety during those perilous times. It is also a privilege to recognize a group of police officers from my hometown of Fort Lauderdale. I'm delighted to welcome the Fraternal Order of Police, Fort Lauderdale Lodge #31 to Washington. Led by Detective Tom Mangifesta, these first-class men and women serve the residents of Fort Lauderdale and Broward County with diligence and honor. May we never take for granted the responsibility local law enforcement has accepted, guarding our safety and security as we go about our daily lives.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I have recently come into contact with ``A Child Is Missing,'' a public/private partnership founded by Sherry Friedlander and sponsored by several prestigious organizations such as the City of Fort Lauderdale and the Florida Police Chiefs Association, among others. I am proud of the people of Florida and their support for this organization, and its service to the general public and the law enforcement community of my home state. A Child Is Missing is an organization currently working in the state of Florida, whose purpose is to aid the law enforcement authorities to locate missing children, elderly, and people with disabilities. Their mode of work: once a report has been filed of a missing child, elderly, or person with disabilities, the law enforcement agency may call ``A Child Is Missing'' and give the specifics of the case. Within the hour, ``A Child Is Missing'' calls and relays an automatic phone message to phone numbers located within the area where the person was last seen. The phone message gives a description of the person, informs of their disappearance, and provides the phone number of the closest law enforcement agency in the area. ``A Child Is Missing's'' technology is state of the art, their mode of operation simple and impressively fast. Their degree of effectiveness is so high that in a five-year period their radius of action has increased from a local to a state level, and they are currently trying to make their systems operate nationwide. It is therefore no surprise to me that police Chief Edward Morley has said, speaking of the case of a missing boy, ``The role of `A Child Is Missing' was instrumental in reuniting him quickly with his family.'' I applaud the founders, sponsors and workers of ``A Child Is Missing.'' They have given us an opportunity to help the community, and this is why I am a supporter of this initiative. I look forward to seeing this Florida initiative expanded nationwide.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. My congratulations to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) for taking what I think is an historic piece of legislation and improving it. In listening to the debate on the floor today and late into last night, there was an effort, I think, to rewrite history that was going on here on the floor of the House of Representatives. I heard time and time again speakers from this side of the aisle getting up and talking about how President Clinton had input into the bill and finally he signed it after vetoing it three times. That is simply not true. We reached out time and time again to the White House and we were met with silence. They had no interest in working with Republicans on welfare reform. It was not until right before the election that the President decided that it was about time that he looked at this issue that was very much on the conscience of the American voters. On August 22, 1996, President Clinton did finally sign a welfare reform bill. This historic legislation has pulled 3 million children out of poverty when we were hearing time and time again from the other side of the aisle that they were going to be sleeping on the grates. Yes, half of the Democrats did support us. That is a good thing, because that sent the message out that America expected more of the poor, the economic disadvantaged. But what is separating us on this issue is that we believe in the human spirit so strongly that we feel that if we raise that level of expectation that they will rise up to meet it, and history tells us that we were right. We were absolutely right, because what we did was take people out of a life of dependence and made them role models for their kids, and they did do better. Now we expect the States to get more of their people on the work rolls. We have lowered the amount of people on welfare across this country by over 50 percent, but we are not through. We are going to do better. Together we will do better. Vote ``yes'' on this bill and ``no'' on the substitute.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I would like to just comment briefly on the observation that the gentleman just made. There is an old saying that there are two things in life that are certain, one is death and the other is taxes. I think we can add to that the provision that bills are going to languish in the Senate and will not be taken up, so I would guess that these pay- fors are going to be used over and over again in this House until the Senate finally passes something, which the American people really would like to see them do and like to see us work together to do these things. I would also like to say that this particular bill in the pay-for is a budget function. It does not take any general revenue and put it into the Social Security system as the gentleman from California's bill does. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to at this time correct a figure that I gave the House earlier. I said that the cost of doing nothing was $27 trillion. That figure is actually $25 trillion over 75 years. When I look, and as I see and as I have heard and read from the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) and from the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), they do not think that we have to do anything. They do not think we have to forward fund Social Security. Let me just run a couple of statistics by the House. I hate to take this time on this particular bill because it is peripheral to it, but in that all of the benefits that the gentleman from California keeps talking about in his bill are in my Social Security bill or my bill to save Social Security, I think it does have some justification to be discussed and particularly since my Social Security bill has been discussed at length as a privatization bill, which it is clearly not. When Social Security first came on-line many, many years ago, there were 40 some workers per retiree. Now we are down to a little over three. Soon it will be a little over two. A pay-as-you-go system has served us well and as long as we had a lot of workers at the bottom and few retirees at the top, it was fine. It worked great. But now we know and the actuaries have told us, and now through the Democrat administration and the Republican administration they have advised us that there is a deficit pending in the Social Security System over the next 75 years of $25 trillion. Mr. Speaker, that is a lot of money. That is money that can bring down an entire economy. So I say to my friend from California and other Members that think there is no need to do something, we are going to be faced with a dilemma and we had better start facing it. Do we want to cut benefits by one-third? I doubt it. But that is what we will have to do if we are going to keep the system going as a pay-as-you-go system. Do we want to increase payroll taxes by 50 percent? I am sure we do not. But that is what we are going to have to do if you are going to maintain benefits and keep it as a pay-as-you-go system. Or do we want to rack up a deficit of $25 trillion over the next 75 years? I am not making these figures up. I do not come to this floor unprepared with these figures. It is a question of what the administration has said through the Social Security System, now through a Democrat and a Republican administration. So I think it is time that we quit the talk about privatization, quit the talk about raiding the trust fund, all of these sorts of things. It is pure nonsense, because we do not raid the trust fund, because there is no money in the trust fund. There are only Treasury Bills, and you cannot raid the Treasury Bills. I would also say that over the years when the Democrats controlled this House and the Senate and spending was very much in the red, that the Democrats did not raid the Social Security trust fund, because the system just does not work that way. But those are great words to really worry our seniors. The seniors of this country have paid into a Social Security system as they know it today, and this Congress or no Congress should touch it. We should maintain the system and the integrity of the system as exactly what they have paid into. However, it is time for us to begin to think ahead. If we do not want to raise payroll taxes, if we do not want to cut benefits, then we had better start planning ahead for the next generation, instead of just the next election. All we have heard about from the other side is the next election. Let us be responsible legislators and get together and save Social Security. Let us be concerned about our grandkids and our kids. This is tremendously important. I think about every one of my 13 grandkids every time I think about where are we going to leave this country and this great retirement system. These little bitty kids are going to be seniors some day; they are going to be facing the possibility of poverty. They are going to pay into a Social Security system all of their working years. They deserve better, Mr. Speaker. They deserve a responsible Congress that will go ahead and put all this rhetoric aside and reform Social Security. Unfortunately, I do not think we are going to see that until after this election, because there are some in this House that would rather have the issue that might change the majority of this House rather than saving Social Security for their kids. That is a sad commentary, Mr. Speaker. With that, I would like to end on a positive note and urge that all of the Members of this body vote ``yes'' on H.R. 4069 which is before this House. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4069) to amend title II of the Social Security Act provide for miscellaneous enhancements in Social Security benefits, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, on Mother's Day the Nation honored the love and daily sacrifices of our mothers in raising us and unstintingly giving of themselves both in the workforce and at home. Not just our mothers, but all women play an essential role in advancing our Nation's economic success and the American spirit, which is why it is so important to take the steps we can to enhance the Social Security benefits that are so crucial to women's retirement income security. Many of the changes in the Social Security program over time were specifically designed to help women, such as the addition of the wives' and widows' benefits in 1939, mothers' benefits in 1950, divorced women's benefits in 1965, and disabled widows' benefits in 1967. By providing spouse and survivor benefits, lifetime inflation-adjusted benefits, and a progressive benefit formula, Social Security helps keep millions of women out of poverty today. Although we face significant choices ahead in strengthening Social Security's financing for future generations, both Republicans and Democrats agree we must continue to enhance Social Security for women. The Social Security Benefit Enhancements for Women Act is a critical first step both towards increasing women's retirement income security and in forming the building blocks of a bipartisan dialogue on how best to strengthen Social Security for all the American people. H.R. 4069, as amended, takes a first step towards updating benefits and helping women meet their needs. This legislation will not affect Social Security's long-term financial picture, but it will make meaningful improvements for over 12,000 women when it is implemented. The Social Security Benefit Enhancements for Women Act increases benefits for certain widows, it allows more disabled widows to qualify for disabled widow benefits, and enables certain divorced spouses to avoid the unnecessary 2-year waiting for the benefits. These enhancements are particularly necessary because elderly and disabled widows and divorced spouses are more likely to live in poverty. The subcommittee worked with the Social Security Administration to identify these benefit enhancements, and several women and senior organizations agreed these changes are an important start in updating Social Security to improve women's retirement securities. AARP said, ``The bill targets improvements for widows and divorced spouses, and it will help ensure that Social Security continues to provide valuable economic support for older women who rely on Social Security for much of their retirement income.'' Moreover, these provisions have solid bipartisan support. Furthermore, this bill continues the subcommittee's traditional process of making sure benefits are not increased within the Social Security System at the expense of other retirees or workers. We insisted on that when we repealed the earnings penalty and enacted the Ticket to Work legislation. According to the Social Security actuaries, this bill succeeds in increasing benefits without affecting the financial picture for the program. That means that mothers and grandmothers can have better benefits but not at the expense of their daughters and their granddaughters. Some have proposed not meeting this bipartisan tradition, proposing even more expansive increases in women's benefits, but without addressing Social Security's financial challenges. To pay for the benefits, the general income tax receipts are transferred into Social Security in an amount that would be available if we increase the top tax rate. But we have not, and that means some other family worker or business would have to pay the bill sooner or later. There is more we need to do for women, and we will. The President's bipartisan commission proposed increasing widows' benefits and guarantees that minimum-wage workers do not retire into poverty. My legislation, the Social Security Guarantee Plus Act, saves Social Security for 75 years and beyond; and it includes provisions to increase widows' benefits, reduces the penalty women pay who temporarily leave work to care for young children, expands eligibility for young disabled widows and divorced spouses, and reduces the government pension offset. Other Members of Congress have also introduced plans that directly enhance women's benefits. Many of our Nation's mothers and seniors depend upon Social Security for much or all of their retirement income. One of the best ways to honor the women of America is to continue our long-standing tradition of enhancing Social Security for women and other vulnerable seniors and sow the seeds of cooperation rather than harvest the chaff of political acrimony. I ask that we all vote in favor of H.R. 4069. Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I insert for the Record a statement that provides additional information about these enhancements for women and how they were developed, as well as letters of support we received from AARP, Independent Women's Forum, National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, United Seniors Association, Women Impacting Public Policy, and Women's Institute for a Secure Retirement. Social Security Benefit Enhancements for Women Act of 2002 purpose and summary The Social Security Benefit Enhancements for Women Act of 2002 improves fairness and updates benefit eligibility requirements, resulting in higher benefits and expanded eligibility for certain elderly and disabled widows and divorced spouses, who are among the most likely to live in poverty. background and need for legislation Historically, women depend more on Social Security than do men for their retirement income. Women represent 58 percent of all aged Social Security beneficiaries, and approximately 71 percent of beneficiaries age 85 and older. On average, Social Security provides about half of total income for unmarried women (including widows) age 65 and older, and it is the only source of retirement income for 26 percent of unmarried elderly women. Social Security provides a crucial safety net for women's income security--without Social Security over half of elderly women would live in poverty. There are several aspects of Social Security that are particularly important to women. At birth, women are expected to live almost 6 years longer than men. At age 65, women are expected to live about 3 years longer than men. Social Security protects women by providing lifetime, inflation- adjusted benefits to workers and their survivors, which help protect them from falling into poverty throughout their retirement as assets are spent down, other sources of pension income fail to keep pace with inflation, or after a spouse dies. In addition to living longer, women tend to earn less than men. In 2000, the median weekly earnings for female full-time wage and salary workers were $491, or 76% of the $646 for their male counterparts. Social Security's progressive benefit formula protects women by replacing a higher percentage of earnings for low-wage workers than for high- wage workers. Another reason women earn less than men over their lifetimes is time spent outside the workforce caring for children or other family members. Of workers first receiving benefits in 1999, women worked a median of 32 years, while men worked a median of 44 years. The difference in time spent in the workforce is projected to narrow in the future, but women are still expected to work fewer years than men on average because of family-care responsibilities. Social Security protects women who have less labor force participation and lower wages than their spouse by paying spousal benefits. Although vital to women's economic security, some aspects of the Social Security program have not kept pace with changes in women's participation in the workforce and trends in marriage and child-care. For example: two-earner couples receive lower benefits than one-earner couples with the same total earnings and age at retirement; parents who take time out of the workforce to care for a child receive no credit toward retirement benefits for those years; and a person must have been married 10 years to qualify for benefits as a divorced spouse, even though the median length of a marriage ending in divorce is around 7 years. Numerous proposals have been made to update and improve Social Security benefits for women, ranging from minor adjustments to spouse, divorced spouse, and survivor benefits, to credits for years spent caring for young children. While many proposals to strengthen Social Security for women would reduce Social Security's long-term ability to pay benefits and are best considered as part of comprehensive legislation to strengthen Social Security, there are a number of ways to remedy current inequities in benefits and eligibility criteria with only a negligible effect on Social Security's finances. Once implemented, H.R. 4069 would improve benefits for over 120,000 Americans according to estimates by the Congressional Budget Office, by improving benefits for divorced spouses and certain elderly and disabled widows. subcommittee action The Ways and Means Subcommittee on Social Security held hearings on February 3, 1999, February 28, 2002, and March 6, 2002 devoted to the topic of the need to enhance Social Security benefits for women. In the course of these hearings 31 witnesses provided testimony regarding the importance of maintaining and improving Social Security benefits for women. These hearings included testimony from the Commissioner of Social Security, the General Accounting Office, Members of Congress, and experts on women's issues. In addition, witnesses at hearings on Social Security's long-term financing challenges and options to address those challenges have discussed the unique needs of women and the particular importance of spouse's and survivors benefits, the progressive benefit formula, and lifetime inflation-adjusted benefits. The Committee on Ways and Means, Subcommittee on Social Security worked with the Social Security Administration to identify provisions that would help improve benefits for women without negatively affecting the Social Security Trust Funds. The provisions included in this bill generated strong bipartisan support. On March 20, 2002 Mr. Shaw, on behalf of himself and Mr. Matsui, Mr. Becerra, Mr. Brady of Texas, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Collins, Mr. Doggett, Ms. Dunn, Mr. Foley, Mr. Hayworth, Mr. Houghton, Mr. Lewis of Kentucky, Mr. McCrery, Mr. NcNulty, Mr. Pomeroy, Mr. Portman, Mr. Ramstad, and Mr. Rangel introduced H.R. 4069, the Social Security Benefit Enhancements for Women Act of 2002. These provisions serve both to enhance women's retirement income security and as the first steps toward a bipartisan dialogue on ways to strengthen Social Security for all Americans, and are supported by women's advocacy and senior's organizations, including AARP, Independent Women's Forum, National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, United Seniors, Women Impacting Public Policy, and Women's Institute for a Secure Retirement. Explanation of Provisions and Comparison With Current Law Section 2. Repeal of 7-year Restriction on Eligibility for Widow's and Widower's Insurance Benefits Based on Disability Present law A disabled surviving spouse (including a disabled surviving divorced spouse in some cases) of a deceased insured worker can be paid monthly benefits if the surviving spouse is age 50-59 and becomes disabled before the latest of: Seven years after the month the worker died; seven years after the last month the surviving spouse was previously entitled to benefits on the worker's earnings record as a surviving spouse with child in care; or seven years after the month a previous entitlement to disabled widow(er)s benefits ended because the disability of the widow(er) ended. Explanation of provision This provision would eliminate this time requirement for entitlement as a disabled surviving spouse or disabled surviving divorced spouse. Reason for change The current law provision leaves gaps in the protection of some disabled widow(er)s, because the 7-year period may not afford all of them adequate opportunity to qualify for disability benefits based on their own work history. Eliminating the 7-year deadline would improve the benefit protection for disabled widow(er)s who currently fail to meet criteria for the current 7-year deadline, regardless of whether they qualify for disability benefits based on their own work history. For those widow(er)s who are able to qualify for benefits based on their own work history, it would improve protection by allowing them to get potentially higher survivor benefits. Effective date Effective for benefits for months beginning after November 2002. SECTION 3. Exemption from 2-year Waiting Period for Divorced Spouse's Benefits Upon Other Spouse's Remarriage Present law If a worker has reached age 62 and is eligible to receive Social Security benefits (but has not applied for them), his or her divorced spouse can become entitled to divorced spouse benefits based on the worker's earnings record if the divorced spouse meets all the following conditions; The divorced spouse is age 62 or older; the divorced spouse is not married; the divorced spouse had been married to the worker for at least 10 years before the date the divorce became final; the divorced spouse has filed an application for divorced spouse benefits; the divorced spouse is not entitled to a retired or disabled worker benefit based on a primary insurance amount that equals or exceeds one-half the worker's primary insurance amount; and the divorced spouse has been divorced from the worker for at least two years. In addition, if the worker is subject to the earnings test, divorced spouse benefits would be commensurately reduced, unless the divorced spouse meets the aforementioned conditions. Explanation of Provision Under the provision, if the worker remarries someone other than the divorced spouse, then the duration of divorce condition is deemed to be met as the date of the remarriage. reason for change The 2-year waiting period was included as part of a provision enacted in 1983 that allows divorced spouses to collect benefits as the former spouse of a worker who is eligible for Social Security benefits, but who has not applied for them or is having benefits withheld because of the earnings test. In contrast, a married spouse cannot receive spousal benefits unless the worker is also receiving benefits, and may have spousal benefits reduced if the worker is subject to the earnings test. The 2-year waiting period was included to discourage couples from divorcing in order to circumvent restrictions on spousal benefits. However, the waiting period is not appropriate in cases where the worker remarries someone else. Effective date Effective for benefits for months beginning after November 2002. Section 4. Months Ending After Deceased Individual's Death Disregarded in Applying Early Retirement Rules With Respect to Deceased Individual for Purposes of Limitation on Widow's and Widower's Benefits Present law Under present law, the benefits of a widow or widower are subject to a limitation if the deceased spouse had become entitled to retired worker benefits before attaining the normal retirement age. This limitation, referred to as the widow(er)'s limit, restricts the widow(er)'s benefit to the benefit amount the deceased worker would have been receiving if still alive (but not less than 82.5 percent of the primary insurance amount). The intent of the widow(er)'s limit is to maintain some degree of reduction in the benefits of the surviving spouse as a result of the deceased worker having become entitled to benefits before attaining the normal retirement age. If the deceased spouse's death occurs before the normal retirement age, no adjustment to the number of reduction months is made in computing the widow(er)'s limit to account for months the worker did not receive benefits due to the worker's death. (However, such an adjustment is made to the widow(er)'s limit to account for months the worker did not receive benefits due to earnings exceeding the exempt amount under the retirement earnings test. Explanation of provision Under this provision, if the deceased spouse's death occurs after he or she becomes entitled to a retired worker benefit and before he or she attains the normal retirement age, the widow(er) limit would be recomputed at the time the deceased spouse would have reached the normal retirement age. The recomputation of the widow(er) limit would exclude the month of death and all subsequent months in determining the number of months of early retirement reduction applicable for the benefit the decreased worker would be receiving if still alive. This would give the widow(er) a potentially higher benefit based on the deceased worker's earnings history. Reason for change In general, widow(er)'s benefits are limited to reflect the longer period of time the worker received benefits because he or she retired before attaining the normal retirement age. However, the widow(er)'s benefits are limited for the rest of his or her life, even, if the deceased spouse collected benefits only for a few months before dying. This results in unequal treatment of widow(er)s whose spouses received benefits for the same amount of time before they attained the normal retirement age, but who retired at different ages. This provision would base the widow(er) limit on the number of months the worker actually received benefits between the age of retirement and the normal retirement age, rather than the number of months between the age of retirement and the normal retirement age, thus equalizing treatment of widow(er)s of workers who collected benefits for the same number of months before the normal retirement age. (Also, this change is consistent with the way that the widow(er)'s limit is now adjusted to exclude months before normal retirement age in which the worker did not receive benefits due to earnings exceeding the exempt amount under the retirement earnings test.) Effective date Effective for benefits for months beginning after November 2002.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has a copy of my bill. The gentleman has critiqued my bill. The gentleman has been asked to give constructive comment to my bill. Now what we are talking about is not the bill before this committee, but when we start hearing the word privatization, the gentleman knows full well there are those in this House that will abuse the word privatization. Privatization is simply defined as taking something run by the government and turn it over to the private sector. The gentleman from California knows full well that my Social Security reform bill leaves the Social Security system totally intact. We take not one dime out of the Social Security trust fund or the payroll taxes. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say, so there is no misconception here, that the Social Security Administration under two Presidents, a Democrat and a Republican, estimate that by doing nothing, the cost of doing nothing which is the only bill that I have heard coming from the other side to save Social Security, is going to cost $27 trillion over 75 years. Whereas the Social Security Administration, assuming that we borrow all of the money necessary to make up the shortfall in Social Security under my particular bill, that it will all be paid back and over that 75 years will create a $1 trillion surplus. Which does the gentleman want? It is time that we work together. There are those in this body that absolutely shamelessly use the word privatization when we are not going to privatize Social Security. Mr. Speaker, as long as I am chairman of the Subcommittee on Social Security, it is not going to be privatized; but we are desperately looking for some assistance from other side of the aisle. We need constructive engagement. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).

Mr. SHAW

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

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would like to add my welcome to Pastor Mullins. It is an honor to have him here today. Mr. Speaker, today we welcome Pastor Tom Mullins of Christ Fellowship church in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida as House Chaplain. Pastor Mullins joins a distinguished list of clergy, who have opened our daily proceeding with prayer, including Rev. Billy Graham and the late John Cardinal O'Connor. Also, I am pleased to welcome Pastor Mullins' wife, Donna, and daughter, Noelle. For 18 years and counting, Pastor Mullins serves the 14,000 member Christ Fellowship church as it senior pastor. As senior pastor, Tom commits himself to his faith, family and community. On April 29, 1984, Tom and Donna, founded Place of Hope children's home for neglected and abused children throughout the Palm Beach community. Pastor Mullins also has a desire to aid neglected children around the world through his support and work with Place of Hope International, which places children in supportive, loving homes around the world from India to Peru. Tom's work with children even includes a successful high school and collegiate career as a head football coach. Whether as a pastor or coach, Pastor Mullins has a strong desire in nurturing young men and women throughout the communities of Palm Beach county. Mr. Speaker, Pastor Tom Mullins is a tremendous leader in the South Florida community, and it's my privilege to welcome him and his family to the United States House of Representatives as our guest Chaplain.