E. Shaw

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, two-thirds of a century ago, any kind of income security was indeed rare. Today, however, the success of Social Security in providing income security and reducing poverty among the elderly is well known, and it is well known to everyone in this Chamber. Without Social Security, nearly half our seniors and over half of disabled workers would live in poverty today. Yet, Social Security faces significant financial challenges ahead. Unless we modernize the program's Depression-era financial structure, program income will not cover the full cost of paying promised benefits soon after the baby boomers begin retiring. Today we must let every American know that we will act as soon as possible to save Social Security, and we will not do it by placing undue burdens on today's retirees and workers by reducing benefits or increasing taxes. Social Security provides at least half of the retirement income for over two-thirds of our seniors and 100 percent of income for almost one in every five seniors. Reducing Social Security benefits would have serious consequences for the majority of seniors, and would increase their number in poverty, which is why we must find ways to strengthen Social Security without cutting the benefits. Social Security is also one of the largest financial obligations of many families. For around three-fourths of American families, the payroll tax is their largest tax liability. Increasing this tax burden would hit low- and middle-income families the hardest. In addition, it would reduce the already low rate of return on these contributions that workers may expect. So we must find ways to strengthen Social Security without increasing Social Security taxes. Our decisions on how to strengthen Social Security are particularly important to women. As we make choices, we must keep in mind the obstacles women face in ensuring financial security for themselves and their families and the key role Social Security plays in providing income security in the event of retirement, disability, or death. Without Social Security, over half of elderly women would live in poverty today. As we consider the program's improvements, we must not consider reducing benefits or cost-of-living increases that are so important, particularly to women. We must also remember the critical role Social Security plays in providing financial security for minorities of all ages. African Americans are more likely to receive disability benefits. Since their life expectancy is shorter than average, survivor benefits are also critically important. Also, about two-thirds of the African Americans and about three out of five Hispanic seniors would have income below poverty without Social Security. As we consider changes to the program, we must not reduce the benefits that are vital to preventing poverty among our minorities. We must protect Social Security for all Americans, especially for those who rely on it the most. However, we must also work to ensure Social Security is fair to all generations. Our kids and grandkids need us to find a way to improve the low rates of return they will receive from Social Security. For example, a single man who is 31 years old today and earns average wages can expect a rate of return on his contribution only a little more than 1 percent, and kids born today can expect even less. We cannot, in fairness, allow this to continue. The President's bipartisan Commission to Strengthen Social Security has talked about the unique needs of women and minorities, as well as the system's low rate of return, in its interim report and throughout all of its meetings. Today, the commission will provide a draft report with its recommendations for several options for modernizing and strengthening Social Security. This information will help us along the road towards a solution for Social Security's financial woes. Ultimately, we, the Members of Congress, must make the final decision about which road to choose, and the American people are depending upon us to make the right choices. I hope we will make these decisions together on a bipartisan basis, because this is not a road upon which we can afford to falter or to lose our way. So let us begin today, as Congress first voices its views, and let that voice be a bipartisan one. Mr. Speaker, it is for these reasons that I encourage all Members on both sides of the aisle to vote in favor of this critically important resolution. We must act now to assure Americans that any plan for saving Social Security will guarantee current law promised benefits, including cost-of-living adjustments for current and for future retirees, without increasing our taxes. Our children, our grandchildren, and future generations deserve no less. Mr. Speaker, I know that we will hear a lot tonight about privatization, and there will be some that will say that this resolution is a repudiation of individual retirement accounts for American workers. I would remind the Members that we just voted on the Railroad Retirement Fund, in which we took the railroad retirees out of Treasury bills and put them in stocks and bonds of corporations. Our Social Security people, and by the way, I tell my Democrat friends that only two of them voted against that particular bill. So when Members get up to criticize Individual Retirement Accounts, I would advise Members, and I would guess that every speaker here tonight that speaks on this resolution and that mentions that Individual Retirement Accounts are something risky, that begin with they can get a lot more than 1 percent over the ages and over the long haul, it certainly shows that this is not a repudiation of the Individual Retirement Accounts. We have already voted on going towards the private sector of investment for American union retirees. Our retirees on Social Security deserve no less. But let us not argue that tonight. Let us argue the future of the Social Security system and the need for us to work together to come up with a solution that will, in itself, nail down the fact that this retirement system is not only going to be there for our generation, it is going to be there for future generations and our grandkids. If we do less, they will turn our pictures to the wall. It is our obligation to do this. It is our opportunity to do this. So if we can break down the wall of partisanship and come forward with a plan that we can work together with, I will be most happy and anxious to work with Members on both sides of the aisle. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means for purposes of a colloquy.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would remind the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) that the Commission was made up of half Democrats and half Republicans. Only one former Republican Member of Congress and one Democratic former Member of Congress and one Democratic former Senator, and so that is a 2-to-1 Democratic, as far as elected officials are concerned. I would also say that no one in this body that I know of and the Commission report certainly did not endorse privatizing Social Security. That idea is not even out there and is not even under consideration. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith), who has worked long and hard on the problem of trying to do something with Social Security. (Mr. SMITH of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SHAW. May I ask the Speaker how much time remains on both sides?

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

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, the success of Social Security in reducing poverty among the elderly and providing essential income security to America's workers and their families is well known. Without Social Security, nearly half of our seniors would live in poverty. Yet Social Security faces significant financial challenge ahead. Unless we modernize the program's Depression-era financial structure, program income will not cover the full cost of paying promised benefits soon after the baby-boomers begin retiring. Today we must make clear to every American that as we determine the best way to save Social Security for our kids and grandkids, we will not place undue burdens on today's retirees and workers by reducing benefits or increasing taxes. Social Security provides at least half of retirement income for over two-thirds of seniors and 100 percent of income for almost 1 in 5 seniors. Reducing Social Security benefits would have serious consequences for the majority of seniors and would increase their number in poverty, which is why we must find ways to strengthen Social Security without cutting benefits. Social Security is also one of the largest financial obligations of many families. For over three-fourths of American families, the payroll tax is their largest tax liability. Increasing this tax burden would hit low- and middle-income families the hardest, In addition, it would reduce the already low rates of return on these contributions that workers may expect. So we must find ways to strengthen Social Security without increasing taxes. As we debate how to strengthen Social Security, we must also keep in mind the obstacles women face in ensuring financial security for themselves and their families in the event of retirement, disability or death. Social Security plays an essential role in providing income security for women, without which over half would live in poverty. As we consider program improvements, we must not consider reducing the benefits or cost-of-living increases that are so important to women. Social Security also plays a critical role in providing financial security for minorities. African Americans are more likely to receive disability benefits. Since their life expectancy is shorter than average, survivor benefits are also important. Also, about \2/3\s of African Americans and about 3 out of 5 Hispanic seniors would have income below poverty without Social Security. As we consider changes to the program, we must not reduce the benefits that are vital to preventing poverty among minorities. As we protect Social Security for those who rely on it the most, we must also work to ensure Social Security is fair to all generations. Our kids and grandkids need us to find a way to improve the low rates of return they will receive from Social Security. For example, a single man who is 31 years old today and earns average wages can expect a rate of return on his contributions of only a little more than 1 percent, and kids born today can expect even less. We cannot, in fairness, allow this to continue. The President's bipartisan Commission to Strengthen Social Security has talked about the unique needs of women and minorities, as well as the system's low rates of return in its Interim Report and throughout its meetings. Soon, the Commission will recommend several options for modernizing and strengthening Social Security. It's the beginning of a long road to make American's most important income security program secure far into the future. That road will lead here to the Congress where the first and the final decisions will be made on this critical issue. My hope is those decisions will be bipartisan from the beginning, because that is the environment that the Social Security debate deserves. So let us begin today, as Congress first voices its views, and let that voice be a bipartisan one. Mr. Speaker, it is for these reasons that I encourage all Members on both sides of the aisle to co-sponsor this critically important resolution. We must act now to assure Americans that any plan for saving Social Security will guarantee current law promised benefits, including cost-of-living adjustments, for current and future retirees without increasing taxes. Our children, our grandchildren, and future generations deserve no less.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, ``Made in the USA'' is a badge of pride. It is a symbol of quality. It is a symbol of good workmanship. It is not a symbol of protectionism. The greatest, largest economy in the world cannot be afraid of free trade. The most free country, the strongest country in the world, cannot be afraid to give to their President the same authority that every other President and Prime Minister in this world has today. Let us give this authority to the President. We are not voting on a treaty. We are simply voting on the authority of the President to go forward. The rest of the world is going towards free trade. We are going to lose markets to the countries that have free trade. Let us support this bill. It is very important to give the President this authority.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation that, if enacted, would update and improve the fee payment system to attorneys who represent Social Security Disability Insurance claimants as well as Supplemental Security Income claimants. As many of you know, filing for Social Security benefits--especially disability benefits--is so complicated that many claimants must hire attorneys to guide them through the process. Attorneys who represent Social Security claimants may choose to receive their fees directly from the Social Security Administration. Under this option, the agency deducts the fee from the claimant's past- due benefits and forwards it to the attorney. Prior to last year, taxpayers picked up the tab for the agency's costs of processing, withholding, and forwarding this fee to the attorney. The Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act changed that. Many people on both sides of the aisle agreed that having lawyers--not taxpayers--pay for Social Security's processing of their paychecks was the right thing to do. The law also required the General Accounting Office to examine a number of issues relating to the agency's processing of attorney fees. In a hearing held in May of this year, the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Social Security examined the current state of service delivery to claimants and their representatives, the findings of the GAO study about the costs of administering the attorney fee, the feasibility and advisability of two types of fee assessments, the potential for assessments to reduce applicants' access to representation, the feasibility of linking fee assessments to the timeliness of payment to attorneys, and the advisability of extending attorney fee disbursement to the Supplemental Security Income program. During the hearing, the Subcommittee learned that despite improvement in the timeliness of the Social Security Administration's processing of attorney fees, there are a number of viable process improvements that can be implemented to ensure the best possible service delivery to claimants and their attorneys. That is why, I, along with Ranking Member Matsui, are introducing the Attorney Fee Payment System Improvement Act of 2001. This legislation improves the attorney fee payment process in a number of ways. First, it would increase the current fee cap (which limits fees under fee agreements to 25 percent of past-due benefits or $4,000) from $4,000 to $5,200. The new cap increase represents the first time the cap has been raised in ten years. Second, the 6.3 percent assessment on an attorney's approved fee will be subject to a cap of $100 to help ensure enough attorneys remain available to represent claimants before the Social Security Administration. Third, the bill would improve Supplemental Security Income applicants' access to representation. Because there is no direct payment of attorneys' fees in SSI cases, many attorneys cannot collect a fee from a successful client, and as a result choose not to represent those applying for SSI. The disability application process is just as complex and just as difficult to navigate, whether an individual is applying for Social Security disability benefits or SSI benefits. This provision will help ensure that all claimants have equal access to representation. Individuals with disabilities rely on Social Security disability and/ or SSI benefits for life-sustaining income. We must do all we can to ensure their efforts to obtain benefits are supported, not hampered. Enactment of this bill will help. I urge all Members to co-sponsor this important legislation.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. There is one part of this, and I understand the regional problems that some of the Members have with various portions of this particular bill. I think as Tip O'Neill expressed it very well, ``All politics is local.'' And they will vote according to their constituencies, and I think we all understand that. But we do have a common constituency that is suffering now, and we are getting aid and help for them in this bill, and that is the terrible problems that we are having across this country with drug abuse. These countries, the Andean countries, they are working with us in trying to solve this problem. We need to close the vacuum that they are going to have on the economic damage that this is going to do and the job losses there. I think in all, and in the total of the bill, it is good for American workers. It is good for American business. But there are obviously winners and losers. Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the greater good be served and that all Members support this most important bill.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. I want to use this time to point out one area of the Senate bill which will soon be offered as a substitute which I feel to be somewhat incredible, and I would doubt that the Members on the other side are really, really aware of its inclusions. One of the provisions in that bill requires that the screener will have to have been a national of the United States as defined in section 1012(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act contained in U.S.C. 1101(a)(22) for a minimum of 5 consecutive years. Now, I would ask, has anybody looked up that section to see exactly what that provides? Mr. Chairman, that provides that in many instances that a citizen is defined as a national in that section, that we may be setting up a system of second-class citizens. This is clearly wrong. It is nowhere in the United States Code, and it should not be tolerated by this House. announcement by the chairman

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. It seems like when somebody is starting to lose the argument around here, they start yelling about the Social Security Trust Fund. I would challenge any Member to come to the floor and explain how we are dipping into the trust fund. The trust fund is there. It is solid. It has the treasury bills in it. The Social Security surplus which goes into the general fund, part of that is being used, just as the Democrats did for over 30 years, because we are in a time of economic stress and we are in a time of a war footing. I think both parties will agree that in these particular times of stress, as long as we do not touch the trust fund, the surplus is out there and we can no longer use all of it to reduce the debt as we had been doing prior to September 11.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, one thing that is pretty constant around here is that when we have debate on the rule, no one really talks about the rule. My friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), I think he said it best. He said he is going to support the rule, because it gives the Democrats an even shot. It gives them an equal amount of debate, and it gives them a straight shot at their bill. I think that is a good thing, and I think that shows the bipartisanship that is existing under this particular rule. But when you start hearing about all of this money going to these corporations and big businesses, that is where the jobs are. There is a basic difference between the Democrat bill and the Republican bill. The Republican bill believes in the preservation and creation of jobs. We hear about the amounts going to these big corporations. Let us look at the layoffs. IBM has had 1,500; Ford has had 4,500; General Electric has laid off 35,000 people. I am just talking about the last couple of months. Chrysler has laid off 19,000. It goes on and on. United Airlines, 20,000; American Airlines, 20,000. These are real people who want their jobs. They do not want a handout; they want their jobs. Support the Republican bill and turn down the Democrat alternative.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I noted that two speakers on the Committee on Ways and Means have again gotten up and said something about invading the Social Security Trust Fund. Even when the Democrats had control of the House of Representatives and were awash in deficit spending, and that was even over and above spending all of the Social Security surplus, not once was the trust fund invaded. It cannot be invaded by law because, by law, there are Treasury bills that are put into the trust fund and they remain there until they are needed to be cashed in in order to pay benefits. Nobody has invaded the trust fund, period, not from the beginning of the system when it was first put in place. So let us put that aside. We can argue as to the value of Treasury bills when it is a debt by the government to the government, but that stays intact. We can talk also for a moment about the Democrat alternative. We have heard a lot about bipartisanship. No one called me from the other side to ask me what I would like to see in this bill; even though the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and I are very close friends, he never asked for my advice. So I think that there is a little bit of politics as usual, I know, and we can certainly operate this House in that fashion. We have from the beginning of time. But I think we need to be sure that we actually talk straight politics, particularly when members of the Committee on Ways and Means get up and talk about doing something to the Social Security Trust Fund, which simply is not accurate and it has not been done. The distinction between the two bills, ours, which we call the bipartisan bill, which the gentleman from New York disputes the use of those words, but I call it that because we will have Democrat votes on this bill, it simply emphasizes the creation of jobs, not the creation of benefits. We teach people to fish; we want people to go back to work. The good American workers do not want a handout, they want their jobs preserved. They want job creation. That is what the bipartisan tax bill does.

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

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend from Texas, who I know knows better because he is on the Committee on Ways and Means, ``There you go again.'' The gentleman knows the Democrats have never invaded the trust fund; the Republicans have never invaded the trust fund. The trust fund is made up of Treasury bills. We do not go get any of the Treasury bills. There is a use of the surplus, the Social Security surplus, which is the amount that is not used to pay benefits in both the bipartisan bill and in the Democrat substitute. So let us not go there if we are not going to correctly state the facts.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to my constituent and friend, Elizabeth D. Freeman of Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Elizabeth is the ultimate community volunteer. She has devoted countless hours organizing the private fundraising efforts of the Broward County Library System. As an active member of the Board of Directors of the Broward Public Library Foundation, she has organized their most successful annual event, ``The Night of Literary Feasts''. This event brings renowned authors to Fort Lauderdale for a series of small dinners in private homes and a day of lectures open to the public. You can't say no to Elizabeth, as David Gerkin found out last year. That unique talent, the power to persuade has made Elizabeth a most sought after member of organizations and committees in our community. Most recently, she has chaired the Opera Ball, served on the Board of Directors of the Fort Lauderdale Historical Society, Miami Heart, the Fort Lauderdale Philharmonic Society and SPARK, the fundraising arm of the Museum of Discovery and Science. She also found time to be an active member of Beaux Arts, organizing events to support the Fort Lauderdale Museum of Art. Elizabeth Freeman is an individual who wants to see things accomplished. She usually is the behind-the-scenes worker bee, working for what she believes in, not seeking recognition of her accomplishments. But I think it is time to recognize Elizabeth's forty plus years of community service. Today, we recognize Elizabeth Freeman for all of her good work and as a representative of a very important segment of our society, the volunteers who give untold hours of their time and energy to improve the quality of life of all of us.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Reverend Doctor Ronald J. Dingle for his service to the Boca Raton community. This October, Rev. Dingle will retire after 39 years as Pastor of Advent Lutheran Church in Boca Raton, Florida. Rev. Dingle has been very involved not only with his pastoral duties, but also in the community as well. His civic and community activities over the years have included: United Campus Ministries at Florida Atlantic University, Presidency of the Boca Raton Association of Churches as well as membership on numerous boards such as Visiting Homemakers, Operation Concern, Birthline, and Boca Raton United Fund. Rev. Dingle is actively leading the Lazarus Project, a Lutheran outreach presence in Haiti. Under his leadership many Advent programs were initiated and continue to flourish. Rev. Dingle will retire at an October 26th celebration in his honor. He and his wife Marguerite Dingle will, however, continue to serve Advent ministries and the community on a part time basis. It is with great honor that I commend Rev. Dingle for his commitment to the community and dedication to enriching the lives of his parishioners. His presence at the Church will be sorely missed, however his spirit will live on forever within those who he has touched.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support the Herbert H. Bateman Post Office Building Designation Act introduced by my colleague, Representative Jo Ann Davis to pay tribute to my dear friend Congressman Herb Bateman. Many of my colleagues have spoken about Herb's distinguished service to Virginia as a State Senator and his legislative accomplishments as a Member of Congress. Herb exemplified leadership and honor in his service to Congress on the Armed Services Committee and the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and to his country in his service in the U.S. Air Force during the Korean war. But Herb was more than a distinguished Member or colleague, he was a dear and personal friend. I am honored and grateful to have had the opportunity to have known Herb Bateman. Herb and his wife Laura have been great personal friends to my wife Emilie and me and Laura continues to be a close friend. It is always sad to lose someone from the Congressional family, but Herb will be remembered for his accomplishments and leadership, but most of all for his friendship. We have lost a great friend and leader. Herb was a highly respected Member of the House of Representatives. While I am saddened by his passing, his extensive contributions to Virginia, this Nation, and the fond memories that I have of our friendship will live on forever. That is why, I am pleased to speak today in support of this resolution.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding. I want to congratulate my colleagues, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) on a worthwhile amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment because reforming the sugar program will help clean up the Everglades. It will allow our constituents to keep their hard earned tax dollars instead of handing them over to sugar growers. We are asking taxpayers to spend $8 billion to clean up the Everglades. At the same time--the sugar industry, which continues to pollute this national treasure, is being subsidized by those same taxpayers. Taxpayers should not be asked to support this program. With my statement, I am submitting an editorial from the Orlando Sentinel illustrating the substantial damage the sugar program has done to the environment. Reforming the sugar program will help clean up the Everglades at a faster pace. The current sugar program costs consumers over $1.9 billion per year according to the General Accounting Office (GAO). The program, which sugar growers claim operates at no net cost actually cost taxpayers $435 million last year when the growers forfeited roughly one million pounds of sugar. To compound that injury, all our constituents are helping to pay $1.4 million per month to store sugar the government can't get rid of. If that isn't enough, the Orlando Sentinel article states that, Big Sugar is back asking for more government bailouts. Last summer sugar growers were bailed out again when $54 million worth of sugar was purchased by the Department of Agriculture. They emphasized that this wouldn't happen again, yet this year they had another payment in Kind program (PIK) where they told beet farmers, plow up $20,000 worth of sugar and we will give you $20,000 worth of sugar sitting in our warehouses. What a waste of money. We ask you to stand up to the attempts of the sugar growers to line their own pockets with your constituent's tax dollars. The Miller-Miller Amendment: Reforms but does not eliminate the program. It is consistent with the Administration's principles that we should not rely on production controls and we should get away from government run price supports. Makes the program more market-oriented by reduced support levels. Protects the environment through reduced production. Provides for savings to protect surplus. Provides for increased funding for protecting the environment, particularly the Everglades. The Miller-Miller amendment is an attempt to bring some sanity to this sugar program. It is supported by taxpayer, consumer, environmental and business groups from across the spectrum. It deserves your support. [From the Orlando Sentinel, Oct. 1, 2001] Derail Sugar Aid Our position: The sugar industry's attempt to protect itself is downright obscene. The nation's financial needs in the wake of the horrific terrorist attack of Sept. 11 are staggering. The airline industry is on the verge of collapse. The markets are weak and volatile. America is struggling, emotionally and financially. The sugar industry, though, seemingly couldn't care less. While the nation mourns, sugar farmers have been scurrying around Washington in a fervent bid to protect their own interests. And they just might prevail. The U.S. House of Representatives is expected to take up a hastily conceived farm-aid bill this week. The package includes a provision that would, with a few minor tweaks, continue to cost American consumers nearly $2 billion a year in added food costs, accordingly to a recent government analysis. In a time of plenty, those demands could be considered arrogant. But in this time of uncertainty, they are downright obscene. For more than six decades, government leaders have coddled the sugar industry, a relationship nurtured by the millions of dollars sugar producers pump into federal campaign coffers. The industry has relied on Americans to provide them with government-inflated price guarantees, foreign-import restrictions and low-interest federal loans. Last year, sugar farmers defaulted on about $460 million worth of those loans. Not surprisingly, though, industry executives blame everyone but themselves for their failures. The can't compete with foreign sugar producers because of foreign price supports. They're not allowed to sell their products overseas. Government forced the industry to default on the loans last year. Woe are the sugar barons. If trade agreements prohibit sugar from effective free- market competition, that shouldn't be remedied by a convoluted, decades-old bailout program. It should be addressed at the negotiating table. Why, too should taxpayers continue to prop up the industry when, at the same time, they're supporting an $8 billion Everglades restoration effort? Sugar-cane production in Florida, concentrated south of Lake Okeechobee, has exploded from 50,000 acres in 1960 to approximately 500,000 acres today, thanks in part to government support of the sugar industry. Does anyone realize that polluted runoff from those farm expansion helped make the restoration necessary in the first place? There are intriguing alternatives. Rep. Dan Miller, from Bradenton, has proposed an amendment that would wean sugar from the taxpayer teat, pump an additional $300 million into Everglades restoration and save consumers up to $500 million a year. Ultimately, that may be the best solution. But as the editorial below explains in further detail, far more pressing issues now demand the attention of government leaders. Sugar's needs don't even make the list.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, many have discussed the national honors and medals that we should confer upon those brave souls who sacrificed themselves September 11 to bring down United Airlines flight 93 before it could reach Washington, DC, and perhaps this very Capitol building. I would like to submit the following piece for the record to highlight the actions and the life of one of those on board the flight, who was known to the family of one of my staff members. The following was written by my legislative director's brother-in-law, Michael A. Edwards, who is a director at the Ford Foundation in Manhattan: Alan Beavan, October 15, 1952-September 11, 2001 ``Fear--who cares?'' reads a sign on Alan Beavan's desk. Alan was my friend, and he died defending the same principles for which he lived: love, self-sacrifice, and the rule of law over the rule of violence. Alan was a passenger on United Airlines Flight 93 that crashed in Pennsylvania on September 11th, just after 10 o'clock in the morning. Just before 10, two members of his family, separated by thousands of miles in California and Boston, had the exact same vision flash across their consciousness: Alan, with his arm around the throat of an unknown assailant, locked in a life-or-death struggle, and singing at the top of his lungs as the plane went down. Now, of course, the world knows that this vision was reality. Alan and his fellow bravehearts overpowered their hijackers and forced flight 93 away from its intended target in Washington, DC, sacrificing themselves in the process. His wife Kimi will be at the White House on Wednesday, September 26th, to collect the Congressional Medal of Honor from President Bush on Alan's behalf. Alan died the day after his eighth wedding anniversary, returning to California to prosecute his latest case against pollution in the South Fork of the American River. After a lifetime spent teaching and practicing public interest law in New Zealand, London, New York and San Francisco, Alan had risen to become the finest environmental lawyer on the West Coast. His specialty was the defense of the natural world against corporate interests, though he lost more cases than he won, especially against the oil and logging companies. Nevertheless, the evidence he presented, and the arguments he made, have helped to strengthen corporate responsibility in the public eye. Alan leaves behind a large and loving extended family, including John and Chris, his two sons by his first wife Liz, and the exquisite Dahlia Sonali, his 5-year old daughter by his second wife, Kimi Kaipaka. ``Where is Alan?'' a friend asked Sonali last week, worried that she might not understand the reality of her father's death. ``He's in court'', she said, understanding perfectly well, ``defending the angels.'' I love that, not just because it sums up Alan exactly, but also because it reminds us to hold onto the highest as we stumble forward in the weeks and months ahead. War, even death, would be no defeat for Bin Laden and his kind. This is what they want. Only the triumph of non-violence, secured through just laws justly applied, will bring the terrorists down. Alan's family and friends said goodbye to him yesterday, Sunday, September 23rd. We swapped our favorite stories, sang to his memory, and saw photos of the heart of flowers, rice and sesame seeds that Sonali had made and left at the crash site, amid the hills and forests of Somerset County. ``Have I told you lately that I love you? Have I told you there's no one else above you? Fill my heart with gladness, take away my sadness, Ease my troubles, that's what you do.'' Alan was a great soul, and he enriched the lives of everyone who knew him. He was love in action. Fearless, even in the darkest of circumstances. And always on the side of the angels.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I must say that I agree very much with what my friend and colleague the gentleman from Florida just said, except his conclusion is wrong. We must first save the airlines. That is what is of utmost importance. I listened to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) speaking on his concern about some of the obscene salaries that are continued to be paid while these airlines continue to hemorrhage red ink. I think the people who are considering the loans that we are being asked to guarantee should look very carefully at top executive salaries and see that these salaries should be based upon performance, and performance should be based upon, in part at least, the bottom line. When these airlines are continuing to lose money, the salaries at the top should not be in the figures that they are today. But this is for the loan people to figure out, and I hope that they do so. But thinking of this country, a collapse of the airline industry all across this country would be devastating. You talk about lost jobs? Talking to some of the executives in my own district about what is happening to the car rental agencies, what is happening to the hotels, what is happening to the theme parks, what is happening to the restaurants, and all of the people who work in those businesses, it is absolutely time that we pass this rule and that we pass this bill. It may only be the first step, but it is so important that we act tonight, and that we send this message to Wall Street, that the American United States Congress is behind the American airline industry, that we understand the problem, and that we are not going to let the airlines fail, we are not going to let our economy fail. Tonight we must pass this rule, we must pass this bill, and we must move on.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding time to me. I want to compliment the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) and the entire Committee on Appropriations and, of course, the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), for bringing us together and bringing us together so quickly, which is very difficult, and for giving the President the discretion that he desperately needs in order to really be the true leader. I think it is also wonderful to note all across this country how we all are gathering and surrounding the President and recognizing the good work that is going to be necessary in order to rebuild and to retaliate. There is no way that anybody on the face of this Earth can get away with what has happened, the tragedy that we have had just across the Potomac in Virginia, and the awful tragedy that we had in New York, and, of course, that plane full of heroes that crashed in Pennsylvania. Sometimes it takes a tragedy like this to bring out the best in us, but I think the best in us has come out across all across this country. I support this legislation, and urge a unanimous vote from this House of Representatives.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, yesterday Americans were reminded in a very vivid and morbid way, and a pitiful way, of the cost of freedom. We were subjected to attack by faceless cowards who believe that our liberty is in some way dangerous. They could not be more wrong. But as we have seen in the past, adversity sometimes brings out the very best in Americans. Ordinary people turn into heroes. Some we will hear about, others we will never know about, but the truth is that there were more acts of heroism yesterday than there were acts of cowardice. We know the bravery of the hundreds of rescue workers, the firefighters, and the policemen who tragically died in New York. We can wonder at the courage of the pilot of the flight that crashed in Pennsylvania. Was this crash an act of self-sacrifice by the pilot, crew, or passengers which prevented a repeat of the tragedies at the Pentagon and the World Trade Center? Was this plane intended to destroy this magnificent Capitol of democracy that we are sitting in today? Do we who labor here owe countless passengers or crew our very lives? We will always be grateful for the efforts of these men and women who lost their lives in the line of duty who will not be going home to their families, and who paid the ultimate price just to help others. We pray for their families and we pray for their loved ones. As a Nation, we will mourn the loss of our neighbors, family members, and friends, and as a Nation, we will avenge their deaths. We will not let this despicable act go unchallenged. Those responsible will pay an awesome price. In many ways, our Nation will forever be changed by these disasters, but they will in no way diminish the spirit of the freest people who have ever walked the face of this Earth, the American people.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, today I, along with Ways and Means Chairman Bill Thomas, a number of my Ways and Means colleagues, and other Members of this body introduce a concurrent resolution expressing the sense of the Congress that the President and the Congress should save Social Security as soon as possible and vigorously safeguard Social Security surpluses, and that the President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security should recommend innovative ways to protect workers' financial commitment without benefit cuts or payroll tax increases. Social Security is an enormously popular and successful program, and has helped keep millions of people out of poverty. It has been and will continue to be fundamental income security Americans can rely on. However, we cannot ignore the fact that Social Security faces financial challenges in the near future. Shortly after the baby boomers begin to retire, Social Security's tax income will not be enough to cover benefit promises, even though hard-working taxpayers contribute billions of dollars of their wages to support the program. If we do nothing, we would eventually need to reduce benefits by as much as 33% or increase taxes by almost 50% to keep the system in balance. Failing to act would be foolhardy and is entirely unacceptable. We must act soon to save Social Security for both today's seniors and for our kids and grandkids, so that all Americans will a have a secure retirement and protection against income loss from disability or death of a family's breadwinner. That is why I, along with many other Members of Congress, are introducing this sense of the Congress--because we have a duty to our seniors and to future generations to let them know their retirement security will not be jeopardized. I urge my colleagues to follow our example and join us in expressing our dedication to saving a program that is the cornerstone of income security for Americans and has served our country well for over two- thirds of a century.