E. Shaw

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.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the city of Delray Beach, Florida, ``The Village By The Sea,'' for being one of the ten cities selected by the National Civic League for the 2001 All America City Awards. The All America City Award is America's oldest and most prestigious community recognition award. It recognizes exemplary grassroots community problem-solving and is given to communities that cooperatively tackle challenges and achieve results. To qualify as a contender for this competitive Award an application is submitted that illustrates how three community projects were made possible by the efforts of volunteers, government officials, and businesses. The three successful initiatives of Delray Beach were: (1) the Youth Enrichment Vocational Program, which teaches skills and creates opportunities for high-risk youth; (2) the Community Neighbors Helping, which provides elderly minority citizens with food, clothing, and services that they could not otherwise receive; and (3) the Village Academy, a deregulated public school which provides an environment to address the needs of at-risk grade-school students. All of these programs have assisted the countless Delray Beach citizens both young and old with opportunities for a better future. What makes each of these programs unique and warrants our attention is that through public and private cohesive efforts the residents of Delray Beach have, through their own initiative, created specific programs that address specific challenges that individuals in their community face. Public and private, resources are used to create these programs. A balance is created between individuals and organizations which makes these programs all the more better because everyone has contributed. Thanks to the Mayor, the City Commissioners, the City Manager, the City workers, and community organizations, churches, businesses and residents, the City of Delray Beach is once again an All America City. It is an accomplishment to be named once, but being named twice is a true distinction, which serves as an inspiration to every city in the State of Florida and sets a standard of civic responsibility that serves as a reminder to us all that the effort always counts.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Patients' Bill of Rights and this amendment to reform malpractice. Mr. Chairman, in the last Congress I cosponsored the Bipartisan Consensus Managed Care Improvement Act, known as the Dingell-Norwood bill, after much serious consideration. I decided to support this reform legislation, in opposition to Republican leadership, in order to send a strong message to patients and the managed care industry about the importance of addressing managed care abuses. Notwithstanding my support for the Dingell-Norwood bill in 1999, I remained concerned that implementation of that bill could increase health insurance costs and expand liability to employers and health plans, and therefore voted for several less litigious substitutes last year. As a result, this year I am cosponsor of H.R. 2315, Patients' Bill of Rights Act of 2001, which was introduced by Representative Ernie Fletcher and endorsed by President George W. Bush. Because of my concern that the new Ganske-Dingell bill could result in a tidal wave of medical malpractice lawsuits against health plans, HMOs--and, make no mistake about it--doctors, hospitals and other health care providers, I rise in strong support of the Thomas-Cox Medical Malpractice Reform Amendment. Currently, even before the drastic expansion of medical malpractice lawsuits that would certainly result from passage of the new Ganske- Dingell bill, it was estimated that the direct and indirect costs of medical malpractice reform cost the Medicare program approximately $1.5 billion over a 10 year period. Why? Because the threat of lawsuits results in physicians practicing defensive medicine--for example, ordering extra tests or treatments that they might not otherwise do. This adds indirectly to Medicare costs at a time when the Medicare program, like the Social Security program, will be running a deficit in the near future as millions of baby boomers become eligible for Medicare. Yet, we know from a 1996 study of Medicare heart attack victims that the additional tests and treatments did not help or harm these Medicare heart patients. Yet the defensive medicine test increased these heart attack patient's hospital and doctor's bills from five to nine percent. Medical malpractice premiums are also incorporated as direct Medicare costs that determine how much a doctor or hospital is paid for each Medicare patient they treat. Again, Medicare is currently paying every day for direct and indirect medical malpractice costs that do not improve the quality of health care that Medicare patients receive. We have to remember that this is a patient's bill of rights, so why would we want to drive up a patient's hospital and doctor bills if the patient's recovery are not improved? Medicare savings that would result from these medical malpractice reforms--which, as I mentioned earlier, the CBO estimated to be $1.5 billion over 10 years--could be applied to a new Medicare prescription drug benefit or to improving Medicare's preventive health care benefits like breast, cervical or prostate cancer screening. Likewise, patients who have private health insurance would ultimately benefit from lower medical bills, which keep health insurance premiums down, helping to ensure that health insurance remains affordable for individuals and employers. In the absence of this Thomas-Cox Medical Malpractice Reform Amendment, the health care dollars that are diverted from providing patient care and into the legal system will explode. Will redirecting health care dollars into trial lawyers' pockets and the courts provide patients with any better care--which should be the true measure of a patients bill of rights? Research has shown that the threat of medical malpractice lawsuits will not improve patient care. What I have concluded, as a Member committed to ensuring that managed care plans should be held liable for their decisions, is that Congress needs to: First enact a bill which ensures that patients have a indisputable right to hold health plans and all health care providers legal accountable for quality health care. Second, that the new limited right to sue created by Congress be balanced by pairing it with the medical malpractice reforms in the Thomas-Cox Medical Malpractice Reform Amendment--reforms that are similar to the reforms 20 states already have. In closing, I support a strong Patients' Bill of Rights that is balanced by holding health care providers legally accountable with the reasonable limits on medical malpractice lawsuits contained in the Thomas-Cox Medical Malpractice Reform Amendment.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, this weekend I have the honor of attending the commissioning of the Coast Guard Cutter Gannet, whose sponsor is Mrs. Dorothy Fuller Kleiderlein, mother of the late Robert Fuller, who died earlier this year in service to the U.S. Coast Guard as an auxiliarist. I am honored to be invited to such a ceremony, not only because the U.S. Coast Guard represents the best in public service and selfless sacrifice for our fellow Americans, but because I have always been a strong supporter of the Coast Guard's vital mission. The occasion: An occasion such as this serves to remind us of the important role the Coast Guard plays in defending our national security and protecting the public safety. Many have sacrificed for the benefit of protecting our shores, for the safety of those who travel to and from our coastlines, and for the general support our law enforcement and maritime communities gain from key cooperation with the U.S. Coast Guard. But the commissioning of a new ship gives us more than a moment of reflection on the past. It is a call for renewal: renewed technology and modernized hardware, yes; but moreover, a renewed commitment to the mission, the ideals, and the goals embodied in the U.S. Coast Guard. The Coast Guard's important mission and traditions: ``Group Miami'' is one of the Coast Guard's busiest and most active commands. Anyone who has resided in South Florida--or even visited--can see why. Search & rescue cases, counter-drug operations, migrant interdiction, and marine environmental protection are constant, ongoing demands. This new ``Marine Protector'' class coastal patrol boat, a state-of-the-art 87- foot cutter, the Gannet, will contribute to each of the duties we call on the Coast Guard to perform. We expect those who serve our country in uniform, in every service branch, to have the benefit of the best equipment and technology available. The Gannet is a renewal of that commitment. Giving the best our best: The Coast Guard's biggest asset is the people who serve, whether in active duty, as reservists, or as auxiliarists. The best people deserve the best equipment and technology we can provide. Sometimes, even the most modern support isn't enough. We know the tragedy that befell Rob Fuller and Casey Purvis. We know that even with modern technology, the Coast Guard must constantly fight the elements of nature while striving to protect us all when nature--or in some cases, human nature--strikes. But their courage and that of their colleagues must be evenly met with our unwavering support for putting the best tools into the hands of those who risk their own lives to protect us. That is why I am pleased to call myself a supporter of the United States Coast Guard and honored to be attending a gathering to commission the Gannet. If we are to continue to have a strong maritime industry, waters safe for recreational boating and streets safe from the scourge of drugs, we must put the resources where they matter most. I look forward to working with other leaders to make that vision a reality.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, sometimes in this body it pays to read the amendment. The amendment says that at the end of the bill, insert after the last section preceding the short title the following new section: none of the funds appropriated in this act for the Office of Management and Budget may be used for the purpose of implementing the final report of the President's Commission to strengthen Social Security. I do not read the word privatization in this amendment. I have read the report, the interim report of the commission. I do not read the word privatization in that report. I am absolutely dumbfounded why we would talk about the President implementing the recommendations anyway. The recommendations and any implementation is going to have to come back here to the Congress. It is us that are going to have to change the method Social Security is going forward with if it is going to be changed at all. But let us talk for just a moment about the trust fund itself. The trust fund, it is agreed by Democrats and Republicans, will not run out of Treasury bills until 2038. That is an estimate, but it is a pretty good one, and it is one we can count on. But we can also agree on the fact that there will not be enough cash coming into Social Security to pay the benefits beginning in 2016. What, then, is going to happen? The Congress is going to have to do one of several things: either raise taxes and find the money, deficit spend in order to pay off the Treasury bills, cut benefits. Is there anyone in here that is prepared to do that? I think not. So let us talk a moment about what is actually happening. I would like to call the attention of my colleagues to the communication from the Fiscal Assistant Secretary of the Department of Treasury in which they warn, in which they warn that there is going to be a cash shortfall beginning, in this report, it says 2015. 2015. And the report clearly says that money is going to have to come from other sources beginning in 2015. My colleagues may say this report is not true. Let me tell my colleagues who signed it. The Secretary of the Treasury, Lawrence Summers; Secretary of Health and Human Services, Donna Shalala; the trustee, Stephen Kellison; Alexis Herman, who is Secretary of Labor; Ken Apfel, the Commissioner of Social Security under President Clinton, and there are others. I think that what is necessary and what we must do is face up to the fact that we are facing a cash shortfall beginning in 2016, and it may slip, and it may come back to 2015, if the trust fund is further depleted. Sure, they are Treasury bills, and Treasury bills are a safe investment and it is a sign of the commitment of the Congress to the future retirees. But are we going to send our retirees beginning in 2015 or 2016 saying sorry, here is a check for some cash, but there is a shortfall, so here is a Treasury bill. Of course not. We are going to continue to send them cash. And we are going to maintain the strength of the Social Security system. What did the Commission say? The Commission says that they have to accumulate some wealth. They have to accumulate something in order to pay future benefits. Did it say anything about privatization? No. Now, we hear so much, and so many Members will get up and talk about the risky stock market. I was watching the unions protesting the meeting that was going on. But we are going to have an opportunity just next week, because the Railroad Retirement Fund is coming before this House, and we are going to have an opportunity to say that the railroad retirement fund now does not have to be limited to just investing in Treasury bills; the railroad retirement fund now can invest in stocks. Mr. Chairman, I will guarantee my colleagues that people on both sides of the aisle and the very people that are getting up and talking about the risky stock market are going to vote yes, and they are going to vote yes, because both management and labor wants it that way, because they understand that that is the way to accumulate real wealth. I see my friend from New York (Mr. Nadler), who I am sure is going to get up and speak. He has a plan to save Social Security, but it involves the Social Security Administration investing in stocks and bonds of the private sector. I think it is time that we stop these scare tactics. Let the Commission come forward with their report. And in order to implement any change in the Social Security system of any consequence is going to require legislation to come out of this body. So I am saying, let us not only have faith that they may come up with something that we can use and something that will be good, but let us have faith in ourselves, and let us live up to this problem that we have, and that is, we have a cash shortfall beginning in the year 2016. We will no longer have the payroll taxes coming in to take care of the benefits, and we are going to have to find the money to start paying off the Treasury bills. This is going to be a huge problem, and the problem is caused by a very simple situation: we have less workers supporting less retirees than we have ever had before, and that is going to continue to go down, so not too long from now, we are going to be down to two workers per retiree. We can plan ahead; we can save Social Security for the next generation, so let us get together and let us get the job done and forget the scare tactics.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, today over 2 million businesses pay taxes as S corporations and the vast majority of these are small businesses. The Subchapter S Modernization Act of 2001 is targeted to these small businesses by improving their access to capital, preserving family- owned businesses, and lifting obsolete and burdensome restrictions that unnecessarily impede their growth. Even after the relief provided in 1996, S corporations face substantial obstacles and limitations not imposed on other forms of entities. The rules governing S corporations need to be modernized to bring them more on par with partnerships and limited liability companies. For instance, S corporations are unable to attract the senior equity capital needed for their survival and growth. This bill would remove this obsolete prohibition and also provide that S corporations can attract needed financing through convertible debt. Additionally, the bill helps preserve family-owned businesses by counting all family members as one shareholder for purposes of S corporation eligibility. The bill also increases the limit on the number of shareholders from 75 to 150. Also, nonresident aliens would be permitted to be shareholders under rules like those now applicable to partnerships. The Subchapter S Modernization Act of 2001 includes the following provisions to help: improve capital formation opportunities for small businesses, preserve family-owned businesses, and eliminate unnecessary and unwarranted traps for taxpayers. Title I--Eligible Shareholders of an S Corporation Section 101. Members of family treated as one shareholder The Act provides for an election to count family members that are not more than six generations removed from a common ancestor as one shareholder for purposes of the number of shareholder limitation (currently 75 shareholders). The election requires the consent of a majority of all shareholders. The provision helps family-owned S corporations plan for the future without fear of termination of their S corporation elections. Section 102. Nonresident aliens allowed to be shareholders The Act would permit nonresident aliens to be S corporation shareholders. To assure collection of the appropriate amount of tax, the Act requires the S corporation to withhold and pay a tax on effectively connected income allocable to its nonresident alien shareholders. The provision Section 103. Expansion of bank S corporation eligible shareholders to include IRAs The Act permits Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) to hold stock in a bank that is an S corporation. Additionally, the Act would exempt the sale of bank S corporation stock in an IRA from the prohibited transaction rules. Currently, IRAs own community bank stock, which results in a significant obstacle to banks that want to make an S election. The provision allows an IRA to own bank S stock, and thus, avoids transactions to buy back stock, which drains the bank's resources. Section 104. Increase in number of eligible shareholders to 150 Currently a corporation is not eligible to be an S corporation if it has more than 75 shareholders. The Act increases the number of permitted shareholders to 150. The provision will enable S corporations to raise more capital and plan for the future without endangering their S corporation status. Title II--Qualification and Eligibility Requirements Section 201. Issuance of preferred stock permitted The Act would permit S corporations to issue qualified preferred stock (QPS). QPS generally would be stock that (i) is not entitled to vote, (ii) is limited and preferred as to dividends and does not participate in corporate growth to any significant extent, and (iii) has redemption and liquidation rights which do not exceed the issue price of such stock (except for a reasonable redemption or liquidation premium). Stock would not fail to be treated as QPS merely because it is convertible into other stock. This provision increases access to capital from investors who insist on having a preferential return and facilitates family succession by permitting the older generation of shareholders to relinquish control of the corporation but maintain an equity interest. Section 202. Safe harbor expanded to include convertible debt The Act permits S corporations to issue debt that may be converted into stock of the corporation provided that the terms of the debt are substantially the same as the terms that could have been obtained from an unrelated party. The Act also expands the current law safe-harbor debt provision to permit nonresident alien individuals as creditors. The provision facilitates the raising of investment capital. Section 203. Repeal of excessive passive investment income as a termination event The Act would repeal the rule that an S corporation would lose its S corporation status if it has excess passive income for three consecutive years. A corporate-level ``sting'' (or double) tax would still apply, as modified in Section 204 below, to excess passive income. Section 204. Modifications to passive income rules The Act would increase the threshold for taxing excess passive income from 25 percent to 60 percent (consistent with a Joint Tax Committee recommendation on simplification measures). In addition, the Act removes gains from the sales or exchanges of stock or securities from the definition of passive investment income for purposes of the sting tax. Section 205. Stock basis adjustment for certain charitable contributions Current rules discourage charitable gifts of appreciated property by S corporations. The Act would remedy this problem by providing for an increase in the basis of shareholders stock in an amount equal to excess of the value of the contributed property over the basis of the property contributed. This provision conforms the S corporation rules to those applicable to charitable contributions by partnerships. Title III--Treatment of S Corporation Shareholders Section 301. Treatment of losses to shareholders In the case of a liquidation of an S corporation, current law can result in double taxation because of a mismatch of ordinary income (realized at the corporate level and passed through to the shareholder) and a capital loss (recognized at the shareholder level on the liquidating distribution). Although careful tax planning can avoid this result, many S corporations do not have the benefit of sophisticated tax advice. The Act eliminates this potential trap by providing that any portion of any loss recognized by an S corporation shareholder on amounts received by the shareholder in a distribution in complete liquidation of the S corporation would be treated as an ordinary loss to the extent of the shareholder's ordinary income basis in the S corporation stock. Section 302. Transfer of suspended losses incident to divorce The Act allows for the transfer of a pro rata portion of the suspended losses when S corporation stock is transferred, in whole or in part, incident to divorce. Under current IRS regulations, any suspended losses or deductions are personal to the shareholder and cannot, in any manner, be transferred to another person. Accordingly, if a shareholder transfers all of his or her stock in an S corporation to his or her former spouse as a result of divorce, any suspended losses or deductions with respect to such stock are permanently disallowed. This result is inequitable and unduly harsh, and needlessly complicates property settlement negotiations. Section 303. Use of passive activity loss and at-risk amounts by qualified subchapter S trust income beneficiaries The Act clarifies that, if a QSST transfers its entire interest in S corporation stock to an unrelated party in a fully taxable transaction, the income beneficiarys suspended losses from S corporation activity under the passive activity loss rules would be freed up for use by the income beneficiary. The Act further provides that the income beneficiary's at- risk amount with respect to S activity would be increased by the amount of gain recognized by the QSST on a disposition of S stock. These provisions clarify a troublesome area under current law, and so, eliminate traps for the unwary taxpayer. Section 304. Deductibility of interest expense incurred by an electing small business trust to acquire S corporation stock The Act provides that interest expense incurred by an ESBT to acquire S corporation stock is deductible by the S portion of the trust. Recently issued proposed regulations would provide that interest expense incurred by an ESBT to acquire stock in an S corporation is allocable to the S portion of the trust, but is not deductible. This result is contrary to the treatment of other taxpayers, who are entitled to deduct interest incurred to acquire an interest in a pass through entity. Further, Congress never intended to place ESBTs at a disadvantage relative to other taxpayers. Section 305. Disregard of unexercised powers of appointment in determining potential current beneficiaries of ESBT The Act revises the definition of a ``potential current beneficiary'' in the context of the ESBT eligibility rules by providing that powers of appointment should only be evaluated when the power is actually exercised. Current law provides that postponed or non-exercisable powers will not interfere with the making of an ESBT election. However, proposed regulations provide that, once such powers become exercisable, the S election will automatically terminate if the power could potentially be exercised in favor of an ineligible individual--whether it was actually exercised in favor of the ineligible individual or not. The application of this rule would prevent many family trusts from qualifying as

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the late Gerald J. Renuart for his tremendous contributions during his lifetime. Born in Coral Gables, Florida, Jerry received a business degree from the University of Miami and a masters degree from Nova University. Jerry, a retired Naval officer, held the positions of Town Clerk and Manager in Surfslde, Florida for nine years. He then became City Administrator for Lighthouse Point, Florida, a position he successfully held for 23 years. Jerry was past president of the American Society of Public Administrators and Municipal Finance Officers of America, and received a special award from Jimmy Carter for outstanding service to the community and nation. In addition to his outstanding community service, Jerry spent 25 years in the Boy Scouts of America as Scoutmaster for state and national Jamborees, round table commissioner, and district chairman. He was honored with the Silver Beaver Award, scouting's highest honor, earlier this year for his dedication to scouting. Jerry's accomplishments did not end there. He was also a devoted husband of 40 years to the former Maureen Geller and devoted father to his children. Mr. Speaker, Gerald Renuart devoted his life to serving his community and nation. He will always be remembered for his service to the community and should be looked at as a role model to our society. As such, Jerry and his family are more than worthy of receiving our recognition today. On Friday, July 20, Jerry will be recognized for his lifelong contributions with his interment at Arlington National Cemetery. I hope all of my colleagues will join me in remembering and honoring the life of this remarkable man.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I want to congratulate the chairman of the full committee as well as the ranking members of the full committee and subcommittee for recognizing the importance of beach renourishment. I have heard some figures thrown out here today that make absolutely zero sense. $60 million a mile? I know of no beach renourishment anywhere in the country, and I checked with the gentleman from New Jersey, and he said that is absolutely preposterous. I listened to the gentleman from Colorado where he said he is no expert on the particular subject. He has brought the amendment here, and he has quoted some various environmental organizations, some of which have credibility, some of which I think are somewhat debatable. But, in any event, let me ask the question to any environmentalist here in the Chamber: I have beaches that are nothing but rock. Is that an environmentally sensitive area that should be protected? These were naturally covered with sand. Now the sand is gone. In Boca Raton, Florida, a whole strip is nothing but rock. You go down into the southern part of Broward County and Dade County, you are seeing the same thing. These beaches need to be renourished. If one is concerned about the turtle and reproduction of the turtle, they do not lay their eggs in rocks; they lay them in beach sand. There is great sensitivity as to the time we do the beach renourishment. It is very strictly regulated as to the breeding seasons of the turtles, so you do not destroy their natural habitat. We talk about FEMA and 500 feet within the beach. I can tell you, the ocean is coming right up to many of the structures, and they are going to be destroyed if we do not get back involved and stay involved in beach renourishment. The right of contract, the word of the Federal Government, the obligations of the government, these would all be wiped out with this senseless amendment. This amendment must be defeated. I urge all my colleagues to vote against this amendment. I would say in closing, view the beaches of this country as a long national park. We heard that the local communities should pay because they are the ones benefiting from it. Do you want to make the same argument about our national park system? I doubt it. It is there for all Americans. Over half the Americans in this country do their vacationing at the beaches of this country. Let us keep our beaches safe. Let us keep them environmentally where they should be.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Postal Service links together cities and towns, large and small, across America through delivery of the mail. Since our nation's founding, mail delivery has been especially important to rural America, places that were at first a long walk away, then a long horse ride, and even for years a long automobile ride from the nearest downtown of a major city. The Internet today has helped reduce the distance between cities, and even countries, but mail delivery continues to be an important function for all Americans. Most Americans, probably, are unaware that for decades rural letter carriers have used their own transportation to deliver the mail. This includes rural letter carriers who today drive their own vehicles in good weather and bad, in all seasons, in locations that can range from a canyon bottom to mountain top, ocean view to bayou. Rural letter carriers drive over 3 million miles daily and serve 24 million American families on over 66,000 rural and suburban routes. The mission of rural letter carriers has changed little over the years, but the type of mail they deliver has changed substantially--increasing to over 200 billion pieces a year. And although everyone seems to be communicating by email these days, the Postal Service is delivering more letters than at any time in our nation's history. During the next decade, however, we know that will change. Electronic communication is expected to accelerate even faster than it has in the last five years. Some of what Americans send by mail today will be sent online. According to the General Accounting Office (GAO), that will include many bills and payments. In its study, U.S. Postal Service: Challenges to Sustaining Performance Improvements Remain Formidable on the Brink of the 21st Century, dated October 21, 1999, the GAO reports that the Postal Service's core business--letter mail--will decline substantially. As a result, the revenue the Postal Service collects from delivering First-Class letters also will decline. While the Internet will eventually reduce the amount of letter mail rural letter carriers deliver, the Internet will present some new opportunities for delivering parcels. Rural letter carriers have for decades delivered the packages we order from catalogs, and now they deliver dozens of parcels every week that were ordered online. For some rural and suburban Americans the Postal Service still remains the only delivery service of choice. Today, the Postal Service has about 33 percent of the parcel business. However, if the Postal Service is as successful as it hopes in attracting more parcels, that could create a problem for rural carriers. Most items ordered by mail are shipped in boxes that, once filled with packing materials, can be bulky--so bulky, in fact, that many rural letter carriers already see the need for larger delivery vehicles. In exchange for using their own vehicles, rural letter carriers are reimbursed for their vehicle expense by the Postal Service through the Equipment Maintenance Allowance (EMA). Congress recognized this unique situation in tax legislation as far back as 1988. That year Congress intended to exempt EMA from taxation through a specific provision for rural letter carriers in the Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988 (TAMRA). This provision allowed rural mail carriers to compute their vehicle expense deduction based on 150 percent of the standard mileage rate for their business mileage use. Congress passed this law because using a personal vehicle to deliver the U.S. Mail is not typical vehicle use. Also, these vehicles have little resale value because of their high mileage and most are outfitted for right-handed driving. As an alternative, rural letter carrier taxpayers could elect to use the actual expense method (business portion of actual operation and maintenance of the vehicle, plus depreciation). If the EMA exceeded the actual vehicle expense deductions, the excess was subject to tax. If EMA fell short of the actual vehicle expenses, a deduction was allowed only to the extent that the sum of the shortfall and all other miscellaneous itemized deductions exceeded two percent of the taxpayer's adjusted gross income. The Taxpayers Relief Act (TRA) of 1997 further simplified the taxation of rural letter carriers. TRA provides that the EMA reimbursement is not reported as taxable income. That simplified taxes for approximately 120,000 taxpayers, but the provision eliminated the option of filing the actual expense method for employee business vehicle expenses. The lack of this option, combined with the effect the Internet will have on mail delivery, specifically on rural letter carriers and their vehicles, is a problem we must address. Expecting its carriers to deliver more packages because of the Internet, the Postal Service already is encouraging rural letter carriers to purchase larger right-hand drive vehicles, such as sports utility vehicles (SUV). Large SUVs can carry more parcels, but also are much more expensive to operate than traditional vehicles--especially with today's higher gasoline prices. So without the ability to use the actual expense method and depreciation, rural carriers must use their pay to cover vehicle expenses. Additionally, the Postal Service has placed 11,000 postal vehicles on rural routes, which means those carriers receive no EMA. All these changes combined have created a situation contrary to the historical Congressional intent of using reimbursement to fund the government service of delivering mail, and also has created an inequitable tax situation for rural letter carriers. If actual business expenses exceed the EMA, a deduction for those expenses should be allowed. I believe we must correct this inequity, and so I am introducing a bill that would reinstate the deduction for a rural letter carrier to claim the actual cost of the business use of a vehicle in excess of the EMA reimbursement as a miscellaneous itemized deduction. In the next few years, more and more Americans will use the Internet to get their news and information, as well as receive and pay their bills. But mail and parcel delivery by the United States Postal Service will remain a necessity for all Americans--especially those in rural and suburban parts of the nation. Therefore, I encourage my colleagues to support this bill and ensure fair taxation for rural letter carriers.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House Resolution 99, a resolution to urge Lebanon, Syria, and Iran to allow the International Red Cross to visit the four abducted Israelis. Many of my constituents have contacted me to voice their concerns for the Israeli citizen and the three Israeli soldiers that were taken hostage. I recently received a group of letters from the fifth grade class at the Jacobson Sinai Academy of North Dade, asking me to ``imagine how their families are crying from sorrow because their child has been kidnapped.'' I believe Congress has a responsibility to push for International Red Cross intervention to check on the status of the captured Israelis. We should continue diplomatic efforts to seek the help of Syria and Iran in opening a dialogue with the Hezbollah. H. Res. 99 sends an important message to the international community that these hostages have not been forgotten, even while the security situation in the Middle East has deteriorated since last fall. I urge the House to unanimously pass this resolution and continue to work towards a lasting peace in the Middle East.

Mr. SHAW

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

Mr. SHAW. I would like to congratulate the gentleman on his statement and also express the appreciation of those who have lived in south Florida, I for my entire life, in going down and seeing that unique little village that we have, and it is not even a village anymore. It is not doing any harm. It is part of our heritage. Let us leave it alone. Some day a hurricane will take it out, but until then let us leave it alone and let us let it continue as it is.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Roy Rogers for his tremendous contributions to the development of South Florida and the protection of its environmental resources. A graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy in 1960, Roy Rogers served his country proudly as a navigational engineer for a nuclear submarine. Following his service, Roy Rogers began his career as a developer. He developed golf courses with legendary architect Robert Trent Jones and assisted in the planning and development of multiple communities in South Florida. In 1985, he started to oversee Arvida's planning and development of Weston, a community in western Broward County near the Florida Everglades. It was in this development project where Roy Rogers manifested his talents not only as a developer, but also as a conservationist. Although to many these talents seem polar opposites, Roy Rogers excelled in carefully blending his skill as a developer and his care for the environment. Conservationists and developers alike, commend Roy Rogers for his masterful development of western Broward County. After 15 years of carefully watching over the creation of Weston, Roy Rogers recently retired from his position as senior vice president of Arvida/JMB. An active member in various civic and governmental organizations, Roy Rogers will continue to benefit the people of South Florida through his many talents. It is with great honor that I commend a good friend and skillful developer for enhancing the beauty of South Florida through his many projects.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, today we continue our quest to protect the privacy of every American by cracking down on the fraud, abuse, and theft of Social Security numbers through the introduction of the ``Social Security Number Privacy and Identity Theft Prevention Act of 2001.'' Beginning last year, the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Social Security has heard about the truly devastating effects of identity theft. Colonel and Mrs. Stevens of Maryland saw their Social Security numbers used on 33 fraudulent accounts accumulating $113,000 of bad debt. Mr. Bob Horowitz, a single father and small business owner from my district, saw his number used to open five fraudulent credit accounts. Months and years later these victims were still spending time, money, and energy to clear their names. This week we heard from two more of the countless number of victims who have had their identity stolen and their credit ruined. Nicole Robinson of Maryland had her personal information stolen by a worker for a business that maintained HMO data bases. Her identity thief charged $36,000 worth of goods in three months using Nicole's hard- earned good credit. These crimes have impacted Nicole's ability to refinance her home, obtain credit, and purchase cellular phone service. Emeka Moneme of the District of Columbia had his personal property stolen at a gym in Ohio last year. He believes the crucial piece of personal identification his thief obtained was his Social Security number. This theft resulted in 13 fraudulent accounts with a total of $30,000 in stolen credit. It's no wonder why, in a Wall Street Journal poll last year, respondents ranked privacy as their number one concern in the 21st century, ahead of wars, terrorism, and environmental disasters. When Social Security numbers were created 65 years ago, their only purpose was to track a worker's earnings so that Social Security benefits could be calculated. But today, use of the Social Security number is pervasive. We have literally developed a culture of dependence on the Social Security number. Businesses and governments use the number as the primary way of identifying Although Social Security numbers are used for many legitimate purposes, the wide availability and easy access to this very personal information has greatly facilitated Social Security number--related crimes and generated a growing concern for privacy. According to the Federal Trade Commission, Social Security numbers are a crucial piece of information used to commit identity theft. The occurrence of identity fraud against U.S. consumers has increased dramatically in recent years. Identity theft is considered the fastest growing financial crime in the country, affecting an estimated 500,000-700,000 people annually. Allegations received by the Social Security Administration's Hotline involving potential fraudulent use of Social Security numbers for identity theft increased from 62,000 cases in fiscal year 1999 to over 90,000 in fiscal year 2000--almost a 50 percent increase in just one year. In fact, the Sheriff's office of Broward County, Florida, my home county, recently said that the number of reported cases of identity fraud is up 3,000 percent in the past year. What's worse, the nightmare of identity theft continues for the victims years after their identity has been stolen. Studies show identity theft victims spend 2 years trying to remove an average $18,000 in fraudulent charges from their credit reports. Also, victims spent an average of 175 hours and $808 in out-of-pocket costs (not including legal fees) trying to fix their problem. Identity theft is such a concern for consumers that two of our nation's leading insurance companies now offer policies insuring their customers from financial losses associated with identity and credit card theft. Customer surveys found that internet-related liabilities were high on the list of losses most insurance companies have yet to address. One insurer's web site included statistics from the credit reporting agency, Trans Union, who reports receiving a 15-fold increase in calls with questions or complaints about identity theft from 1992 (35,000 calls) to 1998 (554,450--over 1,500 calls per day). Clearly, there is a need for a comprehensive law that will better protect the privacy of Social Security numbers and protect the American public from being victimized. That is why last year, I, along with Mr. Matsui, Mr. Foley, Mr. Kleczka, and other Subcommittee members introduced H.R. 4857--the ``Social Security Number Privacy and Identity Theft Prevention Act of 2000.'' This legislation took a comprehensive approach to achieve this goal by addressing the treatment of Social Security numbers in both the public and private sectors. While H.R. 4857 was approved by the Committee on Ways and Means at the end of last year, it was not considered by the full House of Representatives before the end of the session, due to its referral to other Committees of jurisdiction who did not take action on the bill. Today, I re-introduce the ``Social Security Number Privacy and Identity Theft Prevention Act of 2001.'' This bipartisan, comprehensive legislation is very similar to last year's bill. In the public sector, the bill would restrict the sale and public display of Social Security numbers, provide for enforcement of the provisions, and establish civil and criminal penalties for violations. In the private sector, the bill would restrict the sale, purchase, and display of Social Security numbers, limit dissemination of Social Security numbers by credit reporting agencies, and make it more difficult for businesses to deny services if a customer refuses to provide his or her Social Security number. Based on the thoughtful comments we have received, this new legislation reflects a small number of fair and appropriate modifications, including the following: Since the Federal Trade Commission does not have jurisdiction over financial institutions, our bill would now authorize the U.S. Attorney General to issue regulations restricting the sale and purchase of Social Security numbers in the private sector. Similar to our provisions affecting the public sector, we make explicit our intent that the prohibition of sale, purchase, or display of Social Security numbers in the private sector would not apply if Social Security numbers are needed to enforce child support obligations. To help prevent other individuals from suffering the same tragic fate as Amy Boyer, we include a new provision that prohibits a person from obtaining or using another person's Social Security number in order to locate that individual with the intent to physically injure or harm the individual or use their identity for an illegal purpose. We have clarified the provision that would prohibit businesses from denying services to individuals who refuse to provide their Social Security number, including an exception for those businesses that are required by Federal law to submit the individual's Social Security number to the Federal Government. Mr. Speaker, I encourage all Members to co-sponsor this critically important legislation. We must act now to protect the privacy of Americans' Social Security numbers and to stop identity thieves from preying on those who have spent a lifetime achieving their good credit rating.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. HAYWORTH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and all of those responsible for bringing this conference report to us. It absolutely is appalling how we continue to hear, particularly from the other side, that every time we are going to give tax relief that is going to stop us from doing all of these other things and that it is going to in some way impact upon the Social Security Trust Fund. Believe me, this tax bill does not spend one nickel of the Social Security Trust Fund. The surpluses are going to be out there until 2016. Instead of throwing rocks at what we are trying to do, giving Americans some tax relief, I would invite my Democrat friends to join with me in solving the problem of Social Security, because beginning in 2016, there is going to be some problems, because the surplus is going to go away in 2016. By using just one-third of that surplus right now, we could solve the Social Security problem for all times. So let us quit using this as a political hammer, and let us recognize that we need to legislate for the next generation and not the next election.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize former Congressman Paul G. Rogers who will be honored on June 12th by the dedication of the Paul G. Rogers Plaza at the National Institutes of Health. This occasion is a tribute to Paul's accomplishments in the fields of health and the environment. Paul G. Rogers was elected to Congress in 1954 where he represented South Floridians living in Palm Beach and Broward Counties for twenty- four years. Paul was a well-respected Member of Congress who was known as a man of integrity. He is recognized and has been widely honored for his sponsorship of numerous pieces of legislation in the areas of health and the environment including the National Cancer Acts of 1971 and 1977 and the Clean Air and Water Act. This legislation has saved the lives of countless Americans and improved the quality of life for all Americans. As Chairman of the House Committee on Health and the Environment, Paul used his broad knowledge and deep understanding of health and environmental issues to build a consensus of opinion in favor of Congressional action in these areas. In fact, he is often referred to as ``Mr. Health.'' Paul was always more interested in results than in partisan politics and therefore was able to move widely supported bipartisan legislation. His accomplishments are a legacy that demonstrates what can be done in Congress if we work together for the public good. Today I have the privilege of representing parts of Paul's district and am trying to follow the trail that he blazed in these important areas. The Paul G. Rogers Plaza at the National Institutes of Health honors this outstanding American, and my friend, Paul Rogers. I hope that the work done at this Plaza will be worthy of the name it has been given.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 121, passage of H.R. 1646, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I think it is important to point out that there is great bipartisan support for the underlying bill in this Chamber. And although it does have broad bipartisan support, we have heard a few of our colleagues say that the proposed reforms in this bill are a giveaway to those who are already wealthy; that this bill will make it less likely rather than more likely that companies will sponsor plans. For the last 20 years, we have heard that cutbacks in benefits and contribution limits and so-called top-heavy and other provisions were necessary to increase plan coverage and benefits for the most vulnerable employees. So what has happened? Approximately 50 million Americans now lack private pension coverage, while senior executives have made increasing use of nonqualified plans. Since 1985, the number of defined benefit pension plans has dropped from 114,000 to 45,000. In 1993, the year after Congress reduced the compensation limit for calculating pension benefits from $235,425 to $150,000, the number of companies in nonqualified plans tripled from 20 to 67 percent. Only 20 percent of small businesses with 25 or fewer workers now offer a retirement plan. Our savings rate is one-half of 1 percent, which is the lowest level since the Great Depression. Seventy-six million baby boomers will retire within the next 10 years. But studies show older baby boomers have less than 40 percent of the savings needed to avoid a decline in their standard of living after they retire. Social Security was never designed to be the sole source of retirement income. It was intended to be one leg of a three-legged stool that included employer-sponsored retirement plans and individual savings. This bill will restore the incentive for qualified plans and increase savings, which will benefit all American workers. The bill restores the contribution and benefit amounts to what they would have been had they not been repeatedly cut back. In order for highly paid employees to take advantage of the higher limits and still pass the nondiscrimination test, companies will have to provide greater benefits to all other workers. The bill's simplifications of the top- heavy and nondiscriminatory rules do not weaken the protection afforded to our workers. My colleagues also give little attention to the large number of measures in the bill that are specifically designed to promote the retirement security of rank-and-file workers. The bill reduces the vesting period for employer-matching contributions from 5 to 3 years, ensuring that amounts are not forfeited when workers change jobs or leave the workforce for care of their children. Workers 50 years and older can make additional catch-up contributions to their retirement plan. The security of the private employer- sponsored retirement system will be strengthened when all workers, regardless of income level, share a significant stake in their same retirement plan. This bill provides positive incentives for employers to do exactly that. And I would hope that the gentleman from Massachusetts would review his speech and review this particular bill when we bring out individual retirement accounts for American workers as part of Social Security. It is the key to saving Social Security, and I think the refundable tax credit going into individual retirement accounts is something I look forward to the gentleman supporting.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of Michael Hurst, who passed away on March 22, 2001. Michael Hurst was president of 15th Street Fisheries, a restaurant in Fort Lauderdale. Mike was a cornerstone in the Fort Lauderdale community and, as his representative in Congress, I was impressed by his tireless enthusiasm for promoting education in the restaurant industry. Many times Mike opened the doors at 15th Street Fisheries to give to others in need and to show them what hospitality truly was. He was not only a professor at Florida International University, he brought the classroom into his restaurant. Wherever he was he took the opportunity to tell others about his passion for education and the restaurant industry. Mike was a regular visitor throughout the years to my office in Washington, D.C. It was evident that he had an unwavering commitment to the industry, and his ``We're Glad You're Here'' button is a positive reminder of his excitement for restaurant issues. Mike was a remarkable leader and it was my privilege to serve as his representative. He combined business acumen with compassion and energy to ensure that those in the restaurant industry have educational opportunities. His many contributions will remain with us in Florida's 22nd congressional district and across the nation.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, in recognition of National County Government Week, I rise today to honor the contributions and achievements of our county governments. We have the opportunity this week to reflect upon the importance of our county governments and show our appreciation for our county officials. As a former mayor, I am very familiar with the role of county government and the need for govenunent at all levels to cooperate in order to best serve Americans, and I appreciate the hard work done at the county level. I have the privilege of representing the three South Florida counties of Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach. These county governments serve a diverse population. This population is truly a microcosm of our state and our country. The needs facing these communities can be found in other parts of the country as well. County government has been successful in addressing these needs, and we in Congress can learn a lot from them. The backbone of county government is the people who provide the vital services that are essential to our health, safety, and well-being. The school teachers, the social workers, the firefighters, the police, and others who are devoting their lives to public service help form the fabric of our government. County government is the government closest to the people. It is often the face of government to most of our population. It is our obligation as Members of Congress to help support county governments all across the country in order that they may more effectively serve Americans.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Structured Settlement Protection Act. This legislation protects the Congressional policy underlying structured settlements and brings a final resolution to the issue known as ``factoring'' of structured settlement payments. In introducing this legislation, I am joined by my colleague Mr. Stark and by a broad bipartisan group of our colleagues from the Ways and Means Committee, including Mr. Houghton and Mr. Coyne, the Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member respectively of the Oversight Subcommittee which held a hearing on the structured settlement factoring issue in the last Congress. There are a total of 19 Ways and Means co-sponsors of this important legislation. I am a long-time supporter of the use of structured settlements to compensate victims of physical injuries. Structured settlements constitute a private sector funding alternative to taxpayer-financed programs to meet the ongoing, long-term medical and living needs of seriously-injured victims and their families. Structured settlements enable these injured people to live with dignity, free of reliance on government. For these reasons, Congress adopted special tax rules to encourage the use of structured settlements to provide long-term financial security to injured victims and their families. The Structured Settlement Protection Act that I am introducing today addresses concerns which have been raised over the ``factoring'' of structured settlement payments, in which factoring or settlement purchase companies buy up part or all of the structured settlement recipient's future payments for cash. My legislation is part of a single overall package of complementary Federal and State legislation that has been agreed upon by the structured settlement industry and the factoring industry to resolve these concerns. Under the Structured Settlement Protection Act, the States are given the consumer protection role. The Act relies upon a State court review process to govern a proposed factoring transaction to ensure that the structured settlement serves the purpose Congress intended--providing long-term financial security for the injured victim and the victim's family--while enabling the victim to get access to future payments should the court determine that such access is in the best interests of the victim, taking into account the welfare and support of the victim's dependents, and does not contravene other applicable statutes and existing court orders. The complementary State model legislation agreed to by the structured settlement and factoring industries specifies the process for State court review. Legislation similar to the State model has now been enacted in 19 States and is being actively considered in some 20 other States during the current State legislative cycle. The Structured Settlement Protection Act protects the Congressional policy underlying structured settlements by providing the threat of an excise tax sanction to ensure compliance with State regulation in light of the multi-State nature of the factoring business, as well as resolving Federal tax uncertainties which factoring has created for the other parties to the structured settlement. The Structured Settlement Protection Act is similar to legislation that I introduced in the last Congress along with Mr. Stark and a similarly broad bipartisan group of our colleagues from the Ways and Means Committee. This legislation has been agreed to by the National Structured Settlements Trade Association (NSSTA) on behalf of the structured settlement industry and the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) on behalf of the factoring industry. In light of the joint support of the structured settlement industry and the factoring industry, I believe that this legislation should be non-controversial. In addition, the identical version of the legislation last year was scored by the Joint Tax Committee as being essentially revenue neutral. The agreement of the two sides to the provisions of the Structured Settlement Protection Act provides us with a critical opportunity to put the structured settlement factoring issue to rest at long last. We should avail ourselves of that opportunity while it is at hand. Accordingly, I strongly urge the enactment of this important legislation as soon as possible.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill that would eliminate a trap for the unwary that was inadvertently created with the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. The bill would clarify the treatment for foreign tax credit limitation purposes of the income inclusions that arise upon a transfer of intangible property to a foreign corporation. Section 367(d) of the Internal Revenue Code provides for income inclusions in the form of deemed royalties upon the transfer of intangible property by a U.S. person to a foreign corporation. Prior to the 1997 Act, these income inclusions under section 367(d) were deemed to be U.S.-source income and thus were not eligible for foreign tax credits. The international joint venture reforms included in the 1997 Act eliminated this special source rule and provided that deemed royalties under section 367(d) are treated as foreign-source income for foreign tax credit purposes to the same extent as an actual royalty payment. The amendments made by the 1997 Act were intended to eliminate the penalty that was provided by the prior-law deemed U.S. source rule and that had operated to discourage taxpayers from transferring intangible property in a transaction that would be covered by section 367(d). Prior to the 1997 Act, in order to avoid this penalty, taxpayers licensed intangible property to foreign corporations instead of transferring such property in a transaction that would be subject to section 367(d). The 1997 Act's elimination of the penalty source rule of section 367(d) was intended to allow taxpayers to transfer intangible property to a foreign corporation in a transaction that gives rise to deemed royalty payments under section 367(d) instead of having to structure the transaction with the foreign corporation as a license in exchange for actual royalty payments. However, the intended goal of the 1997 Act provision is achieved only if the deemed royalty payments under section 367(d) not only are sourced for foreign tax credit purposes in the same manner as actual royalty payments, but also are characterized for foreign tax credit limitation purposes in the same manner as actual royalty payments. Without a clarification that deemed royalty payments are characterized for foreign tax credit limitation purposes in the same manner as an actual royalty payment, there is a risk in many cases that such deemed royalties would be characterized in a manner that leads to a foreign tax credit result that is equally as disadvantageous as the result that arose under the penalty source rule that was intended to be eliminated by the 1997 Act. The bill I am introducing today provides the needed clarification that deemed royalties under section 367(d) are treated for foreign tax credit limitation purposes in the same manner as an actual royalty, ensuring that the penalty that was intended to be eliminated with the 1997 Act is in fact eliminated. Without this clarification, a taxpayer that transfers intangible property in reliance on the 1997 Act will find that its transfer is in fact effectively subject to the penalty that the taxpayer believed had been eliminated. Without the clarification, those taxpayers that have structured their transactions in reliance on the 1997 Act provision will be worse off than they would have been if the purported repeal of the penalty source rule had never occurred and they had continued to structure their transactions to avoid that penalty. This bill will achieve the intended goals of the 1997 Act and prevent a terrible trap for the unwary that has been inadvertently created.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. I want to congratulate her on the wonderful job and effort that she has been doing year after year in order to bring about the realization of the elimination of the death tax. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle will argue that all we need is targeted reform to fix any hardships caused by the current death tax. History shows, however, that they are wrong. They are dead wrong. Originally enacted in 1916, the death tax was used as a sporadic and temporary way to finance the First World War. The original death tax provided an exemption of $50,000. That is about $11 million in terms of today's dollars. The top rate was 10 percent, and it was applied to estates over $5 million, which in today's terms would be $1 billion, or in excess of $1 billion. From the 1920s through the 1950s, death tax became a weapon in the liberal arsenal to redistribute wealth. Estates were taxed at rates up to 77 percent. Congress then tried to address the hardship imposed by the death tax on farmers and small businesses, as we are today. In 1976 and in 1981, the exemptions were increased and the rates were reduced to remove smaller estates from the tax rolls. But after that, the search for revenue to close budget deficits led to a decade of bills that largely increased the estate taxes. The truth of the matter is that the existence of any death tax infrastructure would make it easier for future Congresses to expand the impact of the death tax system should, for example, revenue pressures demand such a course of action. However, Mr. Speaker, we no longer have a deficit. Compliance and tax planning costs the taxpayers more than the revenue that the estate tax raises. Let me repeat that. Compliance and tax planning costs taxpayers more than the revenue that the estate tax raises. That is simply wrong. Because the death tax falls on assets, it reduces incentives to save and invest, and, therefore, it hampers growth. Is that fairness? An individual works, pays taxes on his or her earnings, invests their earnings and again pays taxes on the income from the investments. Double taxation. When a person dies, the assets are then taxed again. I say to my colleagues, that is triple taxation. With a maximum income rate of 39.6 percent and a maximum death tax rate of 55 percent, the combined rate can be readily seen as 73 percent. I ask again, is that fairness? But the most important reason to repeal the death tax is simply that Americans should not be taxed when they die. Imposing a tax on some Americans but not on others merely because of their death is wrong, and it is time now to put this tax to death.