E. Shaw

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, and I thank the chairman for giving me this privilege of being able to close debate. Mr. Speaker, we here in this Chamber are only the voices speaking out for the millions of Americans who do care about the environment, and leading that in this House, of course, we have our great chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster). I had the privilege of working with the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) both in the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Committee on Public Works; and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), who I think thinks he is representing Florida for the great work he has done for the restoration of the Everglades. Of course, we have many of the gentleman's New Yorkers in Florida, so I am sure that has been a great effort of his. Also, thanks to the gentlemen from Florida (Chairman Young) and the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), for the work they have done in their committees with regard to the Everglades. Secretary Babbitt, whose name has been missing from this debate, he I think has given us an extraordinary amount of attention in the Everglades, and his name should certainly be referenced in our discussion. And in the other body we have our two great Senators from Florida, Senator Connie Mack, who we are going to miss after this year, and Senator Bob Graham, who has really gotten deeply involved in matters pertaining to the Everglades. This has truly been a great moment of great bipartisan effort. I think the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) may have stated it best in his closing remarks when he said that the Earth does not belong to man, that man belongs to the Earth. This is certainly a recognition. Many roads are paved with great intentions that go in the wrong direction. This certainly is the case and has been the case with regard to the ecosystem of south Florida. Starting from just south of Orlando and going south to Lake Okeechobee, many years ago it was thought to be a great idea to get rid of the flooding, straighten the Kissimmee River, and have it dump directly into Lake Okeechobee. It worked, but it worked too well, because it brought all of the agricultural runoff down into the bottom, which has really changed the very nature of Lake Okeechobee. Some of the oldtimers down there will tell us that in the old days we could read the date off of a dime that was laying on the bottom of Lake Okeechobee. Now we cannot find the dime. It has changed considerably. But we are addressing that issue, and thanks to this great committee that this bill is coming out of, that restoration project is underway. Now it is time to change the nature of the rest of the sheet flow, the runoff that runs south over that great river of grass. It was once thought that this ecosystem was indestructible, that we could do anything and get away with it. Mother Nature had different ideas. We cannot. The very water that now shoots down in by ways of canals into the Florida Bay has greatly changed the salinity of the Florida Bay itself. The natural grasses that grew on the floor of Florida Bay have been damaged because of the salinity and how it varies. There are many other things that need to be studied, but we have a great blueprint. That blueprint is the Everglades to be restored before man changed it. We need to go back as close as we can. But when we see the great cooperation that we have received not only from this body, but we have to go to my own State of Florida and talk about my Florida legislature that has stood up, stepped up to the plate and has put the money up, the matching funds required in order to make this happen; and all of the interests involved, the agricultural interests that wanted to go one way, the environmental interests that wanted to go the other way, the developers, the Miccosukee and Seminole Indian tribes, we had a coming together that was absolutely incredible. It was almost a magic moment. It is very important on this bill that we not only vote it in today by the great bipartisan vote that I am confident of, but that we conference it promptly and get it passed into law and get it to the President's desk for signature. This is tremendously important because of that fragile balance that we have, the fragile balance of State and all of the interests that I have mentioned. I can tell the Members, this is really a wonderful, wonderful moment in this institution and in the history of the country. It is not just a Florida issue. I would like to say, and I would want to absolutely recognize the greatness of our Florida delegation in working together, with interest in north Florida as well as south Florida, in bringing together what is going to happen here in just a minute or so; that is, the passage of this great bill. Mr. Speaker, this Congress, this 106th Congress, it can look back and say that we put forth the greatest, largest environmental restoration project in the history of this globe. It is a wonderful moment for this institution. It is a wonderful moment for our country. I urge a yes vote. Mr. Speaker, it is remarkable to have this broad a cross-section of Americans supporting legislation on any single issue. But protection of the Everglades is a national priority, because most Americans speak of this national treasure in the same breath as the Redwood Forests, the Mississippi River, Old Faithful, the Appalachian Trail, or the Grand Canyon. Most Americans also understand the basic concepts of clean water and the delicate balance that nature requires. Everglades restoration is about restoring the balance that was disturbed by man-made structures as we pursued the noble goal of flood protection in decades past. That is why so many diverse interests have come together, in historic fashion, to support enactment of a Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, as outlined by the Comprehensive Review Study undertaken by the Central & Southern Florida Project, led by the U.S. Corps of Engineers and the South Florida Water Management District. (A list of participating organizations is submitted herein for the Record, with much applause for their work.) That is why our underlying Everglades restoration bill, H.R. 5121 and S. 2796/2797, as modified by today's manager's amendment and the stellar work undertaken in the other Chamber, has been endorsed by numerous organizations, from environmental groups to agricultural groups to home builders and other businesses, to utility districts and other local governmental bodies, to recreational users and Native American Indian tribes. (A list of organizations supporting the legislation is also submitted for the Record.) This legislation is as much about a process to make future decisions affecting the ecology of South Florida as it is about specific projects authorized by this bill. I am pleased that Members from other parts of the country have respected our State's right to determine what is correct within the context of our own State water laws. While recognizing that Florida has come to the table as a full and equal partner in this restoration effort, for the good of all Americans. The State of Florida has already taken the extraordinary step of putting up 50 percent of the up-front construction costs, which Governor Jeb Bush has shepherded through the State legislature as a commitment in anticipation of the federal response. We at the federal level can no longer delay answering the call. I thank Chairmen Bud Shuster, Don Young, and Sherry Boehlert, along with the Ranking Members Oberstar, Miller, and Borski, my Florida colleagues and co-sponsors from other states for their leadership and support of doing the right thing. Citizens from all over the country understand that this is not a local issue affecting only South Florida--although not simply because our state boasts tourists and future residents from all 50 states and many foreign countries. What is good for the environment is good for us all, and with a vote to pass Everglades restoration in the House, we can truly lay claim to a legacy for the 106th Congress: We will have worked in bipartisan, bicameral fashion to deliver a huge victory for the American people and a huge victory for the environment, with the largest and most significant environmental restoration project in the history of the United States, if not the history of the world. Let me discuss a little about the Everglades. There is no other ecosystem like it anywhere in the world. It is home to 68 individual endangered or threatened species of plants and animals, which are threatened with extinction unless we act. The Everglades has also been shown to play a significant role in global weather patterns. Several years of research by state and federal scientists, private environmental and agricultural experts and the Corps of Engineers produced the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP), which includes 68 individual projects to be completed by the Corps of Engineers over the next 36 years. The total cost of the plan is $7.8 billion, to be shared 50/50 with the state of Florida. The CERP will restore more than 1.7 billion gallons of freshwater per day to the natural system, which is currently lost to sea via the St. John and Caloosahatchee rivers. Flood control projects constructed by the Corps of Engineers in the 1940s destroyed the original freshwater sheet flow through the natural system, and more than 50% of the original ecosystem has been lost. This plan will restore the Everglades to almost 80% of its original condition. In its natural state, the Everglades covered over 18,000 square miles and was connected by the flow of water from the Lake Okeechobee through the vast freshwater marshes to Florida Bay and on to the coral reefs of the Florida Keys. The Everglades is the largest remaining tropical and subtropical wilderness remaining in the United States. Its wonders include unique habitats of sawgrass prairies, tree islands, estuaries and the vast waters of Florida Bay. The lands owned and managed by the Federal government--4 national parks and 16 national wildlife refugees and 1 national marine sanctuary which comprise half of the remaining Everglades--will receive the benefits of the restoration. But this legislation is designed to restore the entire ecosystem of the Everglades, not just the national parks and federally owned lands. This should be of comfort to those who enjoy the recreational benefits of such wilderness areas, as well as those living in communities on the periphery of the Everglades who are affected by the water flows of the system. I have heard from local property owners, sportsmen's chapters, airboat associations and Safari Club chapters and understand how important this is to to them. The compelling Federal interest has been matched by the State of Florida, which has already stepped up and committed $2 billion to the effort. Florida's Fish & Wildlife Agency will maintain its strong role. Congress needs to respond to that pledge. Finally, there are additional opportunities for community involvement contemplated or even called for by this legislation. One area is in the scientific verification procedures. Our Everglades legislation includes a provision for independent scientific review, contemplating that the National Academy of Sciences or some other qualified body or bodies will convene a panel to review the Plan's progress towards achieving the stated natural restoration goals. I believe it is appropriate to point out that, in South Florida, we have a number of institutions that could contribute significantly to such scientific research because of their demonstrated competency in such areas. For example, Florida international University, one of the leading research universities in my State, has done a remarkable job in fostering an ecosystem approach to meeting the challenges created by population growth in one of the most environmentally sensitive regions on Earth--the greater Everglades ecosystem. Spearheading this effort is the Southeast Environmental Research Center (FIU-SERC) with its experienced scientific staff and established network of collaboration with university, federal, state, local, and private organizations. FIU- SERC has extensive expertise in conducting monitoring assessments for the Everglades that can contribute to the Adaptive Monitoring and Assessment Program in WRDA. The Corps of Engineers can greatly benefit from utilizing FIU- SERC's existing resources to conduct future monitoring activities in the Everglades. In addition, the Museum of Discovery and Science in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, is uniquely situated to provide an interpretive site to carry out public outreach and educational opportunities pertaining to the restoration of the Everglades. In August, 1999, the Museum signed an agreement with the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force to provide public education outreach in conjunction with the restoration effort. The Museum has a 25-year history of providing environmental science education to the public in innovative ways. It currently hosts more than 500,000 visitors annually and plans to build a dynamic, interactive facility called the Florida Environmental Education Center, as well as expanding its Florida Ecoscapes Exhibition. I hope that such activity would be looked upon favorably by the Corps of Engineers in developing an interpretive site partnership initiative for community outreach and assistance. Mr. Speaker, I include the following material on this legislation: The Central and Southern Florida Project Comprehensive Review Study was led by the US Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District and the South Florida Water Management District, located in West Palm Beach, Florida. Many other federal, state, tribal and local agencies were active partners in developing the Comprehensive Plan and that partnership will continue through the implementation of the Plan. Those agencies are listed below. US Department of the Army: US Army Corps of Engineers; Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. US Department of Agriculture: Agricultural Research Service; Natural Resources Conservation Service. US Department of the Interior: US Fish and Wildlife Service; US Geological Survey/Biological Resources Division; Everglades National Park; Everglades Research and Education Center; Biscayne National Park; Big Cypress National Preserve. US Department of Commerce: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; National Marine Fisheries Service; National Ocean Service; Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research. US Environmental Protection Agency. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida. Seminole Tribe of Florida. State of Florida: Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services; Department of Environmental Protection; Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission; Governors Commission for a Sustainable South Florida; Governor's Office; South Florida Water Management District. Local Agencies: Broward County Department of Natural Resource Protection; Broward County Office of Environmental Services; Lee County Utility Department; Martin County; Miami-Dade Department of Environmental Resource Management; Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Department; Palm Beach County Environmental Resource Management; Palm Beach County Water Utilities. Academic Institutions: Florida International University; University of Miami; University of Tennessee. supporters of the everglades restoration bill The Clinton-Gore Administration Governor Jeb Bush Seminole Tribe of Florida Miccosukee Tribe of Indians National Audubon Society National Wildlife Federation Florida Wildlife Federation World Wildlife Fund Center for Marine Conservation Defenders of Wildlife National Parks and Conservation Association The Everglades Foundation The Everglades Trust Audubon of Florida 1000 Friends of Florida Natural Resources Defense Council Environmental Defense Florida Citrus Mutual Florida Farm Bureau Florida Home Builders American Water Works Association Florida Chamber of Commerce Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association Southeastern Florida Utility Council Gulf Citrus Growers Association Florida Sugar Cane League Florida Water Environmental Utility Council Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of America Florida Fertilizer and Agrichemical Association League of Women Voters of Florida League of Women Voters of Dade County Chamber South Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank and praise the leadership and hard work of the following people, on behalf of those they represented in creating a consensus product, legislation to restore the American Everglades, as embodied in this bill: Governor Jeb Bush and his staff, especially Nina Oviedo and Clarke Cooper of the Governor's Washington office, Secretary David Struhs and Leslie Palmer of the Department of Environmental Protection, and Kathy Copeland of the South Florida Water Management District; Senator Bob Graham and Catharine Cyr-Randsom of his staff; Senator Connie Mack and C.K. Lee of his staff; Mike Strachn and Ben Grumbles of the Transportation & Infrastructure Committee; Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works Michael Davis; Acting Assistant Secretary Mary Doyle and Peter Umhofer of the Department of the Interior; Tom Adams of the Audubon Society; Bob Dawson, representing the coalition of agriculture, home builders, and utility districts; Mary Barley, Bill Riley, and Fowler West of the Everglades Trust; Col. Terry Rice of Florida International University; Dexter Lehtinen, The Honorable Jimmy Hayes, and Lee Forsgren, representing the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians; and finally, my own staff, especially Donna Boyer, Mike Sewell, and Bob Castro.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to modernize and strengthen the Social Security Administration in preparation for the oncoming baby boom retirement. This legislation completes the spirit of the laws Congress has enacted three times since 1983--taking the last of Social Security expenditures off-budget and removing SSA's administrative funds from budgetary restraints which have nothing to do with Social Security's needs. In preparation for the upcoming retirement wave, Congress and the administration clearly want Social Security resources dedicated only to Social Security to ensure promised benefits are paid. Ensuring responsive public service delivery by the Social Security Administration is part of that promise because worker's hard-earned payroll taxes directly support the running of the agency. A recent report by the bipartisan Social Security Advisory Board concluded There is a significant gap between the level of services that the public needs and that which the Agency is providing. Moreover, this gap could grow to far larger proportions in the long term if it is not adequately addressed. This world-class delivery of services will become more difficult as the baby boom generation enters its peak disability years and then reaches retirement age starting in 2008. By 2010 Social Security retirement benefit claims are expected to rise by 16 percent and disability claims by 47 percent. For an agency facing a substantial number of retirements in its own workforce and high expectations from customers, that's a great challenge. It may come as a surprise to both Congress and to Americans that part of Social Security is not wholly separated from the federal budget, but it is not. The administrative costs of running the agency and paying benefits are subject to discretionary spending caps--an on-budget restraint that could keep that agency from preparing for the challenge it will soon face as the baby boomers retire and disability cases soar. Subjecting the agency's administrative funding to the caps really doesn't make sense. After all, these costs are paid for with workers' payroll taxes from the Social Security Trust Fund--they are not paid for with general revenues. When these payroll taxes are used to pay benefits, they are considered off budget and not subject to the caps. But when the exact same payroll taxes are used to pay the administrative costs that support benefit payments, they are treated differently. Mr. Speaker, my bill creates a new cap for SSA's administrative appropriations for the two remaining years the caps exist. This is not unprecedented. Congress felt that Social Security's responsibility to do Continuing Disability Reviews was so important, that it exempted those management costs many years ago. Since no caps exist after fiscal year 2002, Social Security administrative expenses will then go off- budget like the rest of the program. However, to insure the public gets the service they paid for, my legislation still requires the Social Security Administration to go through the appropriations process and to defend that request to both the appropriations and authorizing committees. Each year, new funding requests will be reviewed based upon the Commissioner's documentation that current and future tax dollars are meeting the mission and performance levels contained in the Agency's Strategic Plan and Annual Performance Plan. Open ended funding without results is not an option. Continued delivery of world-class service, along with ongoing progress on eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse will be demanded first. I also want the Social Security Administration to be a fully integrated member of the new information age, so my bill provides for technology investment. The agency must submit a comprehensive procurement plan detailing the benefits, risks and returns from the investment. This plan will be updated biannually and GAO will provide the Congress with their assessment and recommendation on SSA's performance to guide our funding decisions. The way to prepare Social Security for the future is to start now. We have committed ourselves to saving Social Security. Just as important must be our commitment to save the underlying program operation so critical in delivering the service needed by retirees, individuals with disabilities, and their families. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my Ways and Means colleague, Mr. Cardin, for joining me as an original sponsor of this bill and note that this represents another bipartisan effort to strengthen the Social Security program for current and future retirees. I urge all my colleagues to cosponsor this important, bipartisan legislation.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce a revised version of the Structured Settlement Protection Act, which I had introduced earlier in this Congress along with my colleague Mr. Stark and a broad bipartisan group of co-sponsors constituting a majority of the Ways and Means Committee. The revised legislation I am introducing today, again joined by Mr. Stark, will bring a final resolution to the issue known as ``factoring'' of structured settlement payments. 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 legislation I am introducing today addresses concerns that have been raised over the ``factoring'' of structured settlement payments, in which the structured settlement recipient sells future payments for cash. The legislation protects the Congressional policy underlying structured settlements by providing that a stiff excise tax would be imposed on a factoring transaction unless a State court approves the transaction in advance upon a finding that the factoring transaction is in the best interests of the victim, taking into account the welfare and support of the victim's dependents, and a further finding that the transaction does not contravene applicable statutes and court orders. 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. I submit for the record a joint letter of support for this legislation from NSSTA and NASP. An identical structured settlement protection provision has been included in S. 3152, the ``Community Renewal and New Markets Act of 2000'', introduced on October 3 by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Roth and co-sponsored by a bipartisan group of 15 Members of the Senate Finance Committee. The structured settlement protection provision in Chairman Roth's package has been scored as essentially revenue neutral. Enactment of this legislation--which is part of an overall package of Federal and State legislation which has been agreed to by the two sides in the debate--will bring a final resolution to all of the issues surrounding structured settlement factoring. I strongly urge the enactment of this important legislation as soon as possible. Re Agreement between the National Structured Settlements Trade Association and the National Association of Settlement Purchasers on Proposed Legislation Covering Transfers of Structured Settlement Payments. September 13, 2000. Hon. Bill Archer, Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. William V. Roth, Jr., Chairman, Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Messrs. Chairmen: The National Structured Settlements Trade Association (NSSTA) and the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) have agreed on the concepts and language of the attached package of Federal and State legislation that would protect the Congressional policy underlying structured settlements and would regulate transfers of structured settlement payments to companies in the business of acquiring future structured settlement payments from recipients in exchange for a lump sum. These transfers are sometimes referred to as structured settlement ``factoring'' transactions. The Federal and State measures are each necessary components of a single legislative package. (Legislative language for the Federal and State measures is attached.) Under the agreed approach, the States are given the consumer protection role. The proposed State legislation provides for court review of all proposed factoring transactions to ensure that a proposed transaction is appropriate under the circumstances. Specifically, in order for the transaction to proceed, the reviewing court must find that the transaction is in the best interest of the payee, taking into account the welfare and support of the payee's dependents, and that the transaction does not contravene other applicable statutes and court orders. The Federal measure protects the Congressional policy underlying structured settlements by providing that a stiff excise tax would be imposed unless the requisite State court approval is obtained under a State structured settlement protection statute requiring findings that a transfer is in the best interest of the payee, taking into account the welfare and support of the payee's dependents, and that the transfer does not contravene applicable statutes and court orders. The Federal measure would also assure that the parties to a structured settlement are not subject to adverse tax treatment in the event of a later transfer of payments under that settlement. The Federal measure is similar to H.R. 263, sponsored by Reps. Clay Shaw (R-FL) and Pete Stark (D-CA) and co-sponsored by a broad bipartisan majority of the House Ways and Means Committee, and S. 1045, sponsored by Sens. Max Baucus (D-MT) and the late Sen. John Chafee (R-RI) and co-sponsored by a total of 6 Members of the Senate Finance Committee. The State measure is complementary to the Federal measure. The State measure lays out the process for court approval of proposed transfers of structured settlement payments, including required disclosures to the payee and protections for the other parties to the structured settlement. Legislation similar to the State measure has been enacted in 16 States, and the National Conference of Insurance Legislators (NCOIL) has recently adopted a Model Structured Settlement Transfers Protection Act that closely resembles the State measure. The prospect of the Federal excise tax-- which (following a transition period) would be payable by the company acquiring the payments from the structured settlement recipient in any transfer that has not received State court approval--will provide important impetus for enactment of the necessary State legislation in the remaining States (and enactment of conforming changes in States that have already enacted legislation) and for compliance with the State regulatory regime in light of the multi-state nature of structured settlement payment transfers. Federal tax legislation that addresses only the issue of tax certainty for the parties to the structured settlement would be detrimental to our common objective of reaching a final legislative resolution of all of the issues surrounding transfers of structured settlement payments. Accordingly NSSTA and NASP would oppose the enactment of Federal tax legislation in this Congress which addresses only the tax certainty issue. NSSTA and NASP respectfully request that you work with Reps. Shaw and Stark, Sens. Baucus and Grassley, and other members of the Ways and Means and Finance Committees to enact the attached Federal measure this year in order to achieve a final resolution of the issues surrounding transfers of structured settlement payments. Sincerly, National Association of Settlement Purchasers on behalf of its members, Singer Asset Finance Company L.L.C., Settlement Capital Corporation, J.G. Wentworth S.S.C., L.P., Settlement Funding LLC, d/b/a Peachtree Settlement Funding, Stone Street Capital, Inc., and other NASP members. National Structured Settlements Trade Association, on behalf of its members. The undersigned settlement purchasers, although not members of NASP, hereby confirm that they concur in and agree to comply with and support the undertakings made by NASP in the foregoing letter: Metropolitan Mortgage and Securities Co. Inc. John E. Chapoton, Vinson & Elkins L.L.P., representing NASP. John S. Stanton, Nancy Granese, Hogan & Hartson L.L.P., representing NSSTA.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I would like to say the gentleman is certainly going to be missed next year. I wish he were coming back. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 64, the Cervical Cancer Public Awareness Resolution. Educating women of all ages on risk factors associated with cervical cancer and the importance of early diagnosis is imperative in reducing the number of women who are diagnosed and die of the disease each year. I have been a long-standing supporter of efforts to raise the public's awareness of cervical cancer, and I strongly believe education is a critical first step in our fight against this dreadful disease that strikes one out of every 50 American women. A real tragedy exists, because in many cases, cervical cancer is a disease that, if detected in its initial stage, can be successfully treated. We have a proven and effective screening tool in the Pap test, and we have the medical advances necessary to treat and save women's lives. Yet, unfortunately, cervical cancer remains a leading cause of death among women. Increasing public awareness about cervical cancer will help educate women about the need to seek preventive care. It is a vital part of our fight against this disease. Also vital to our fight is to make certain that women have access to and coverage for appropriate preventive care that will reduce cervical cancer deaths. That is why I, along with my colleague, the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman), have introduced the Providing Annual Pap Test to Save Women's Lives Act of 2000, which would require Medicare to cover Pap tests and pelvic exams. Medicare generally only covers Pap tests for women every 3 years. Since the Pap test's introduction shortly after World War II, death rates from cervical cancer have decreased 70 percent in the United States. However, despite the Pap test's unparalleled record of success, studies show of those women who die of cervical cancer, 80 percent had not had a Pap test in 5 years preceding their death. A January 1999 report on cervical cancer by the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality showed that cancer deaths and cancer cases are reduced with annual screening. Fighting cervical cancer should be a national priority. Without question, we need to promote public awareness about the severity of cervical cancer and the risk factors associated with the disease. At the same time, we must promote a health care policy that allows women to be routinely covered for screening Pap tests. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to take this important step in the battle against cervical cancer and support H. Con. Res. 64. I look forward to continuing to work to improve coverage policies so that women across this country can get the life-saving care that they need and they deserve.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill. I think the fact that we have Breast Cancer Awareness Month is a very positive step forward. There is technology out there that helps tremendously in early detection. I have a very special interest in this particular subject. My wife Emily lost both her sister and her mother to cancer, and they both had breast cancer. Obviously in my family, my daughters and my wife are very, very cautious to be sure that they have their regular mammograms and that they do what is necessary in order to find early detection should they be stricken with this terrible disease. Also, I would like to point out the new technology, the digital technology out there that is just now coming online. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka) and I have cosponsored a bill along with others in order to fund the digital equipment and this new technology. I would urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, the Subcommittee on Interior has really done fine work in supporting two very important innovations in my part of the country, south Florida. One is natural, and the other is man-made. As the country knows, America's Everglades is an important part of our natural environmental heritage. People often speak about it in the same breath as the Grand Canyon, Old Faithful, Yosemite, or Redwood Forest. I have introduced legislation which passed the other Chamber last week by a vote of 85 to 1, and that is to enact a comprehensive plan to restore the Everglades. But pending that authorization bill, the appropriations for Interior dedicates $75.9 million towards ongoing Everglades restoration, including $17 million for land acquisition, which is a vital step forward for the coming year. I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) and the Subcommittee on Interior staffers, especially Debbie Weatherly, for making sure that the National Park Service has enough money, $9.23 million, to continue the science research, construction, and land accession necessary for the environmental restoration of the Everglades National Park. I also want to thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), ranking member. In the NPS construction account, the conference report allocates $242 million, including $9 million for water delivery modifications in south Florida for a total of $75 million, a part of which is allocated to the Everglades restoration projects. Turning now to one of the man-made cultural legacies in south Florida, the 465-seat art deco Colony Theater is a former movie house that anchors the western end of Lincoln Road Pedestrian Mall in Miami Beach and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Originally built in 1934, the theater's art deco architecture is a local landmark and has been a vital part of the economic and social fabric of Miami Beach since the years following the stock market crash of 1929, when the winter season tourist economy developed and the modestly sized art deco hotels and theaters were built. The theater has also served as a primary entertainment location for many of the 500,000 United States troops who trained in Miami Beach between 1942 and 1945. I might also add that this was a favorite movie theater for my wife and I when we were dating when we were back in high school. The Colony Theater Restoration Project, which has already raised $1.8 million in State, local, and private funds, will certainly benefit from the Federal matching of $837,000 contained in this conference report. Again, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) and the entire subcommittee and the full committee for working so hard on behalf of the people I represent in south Florida.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring attention to a worthy and important program, which is the National Taking Charge of Your TV Week. This program runs from September 24th through the 29th. The National PTA, the National Cable Television Association, and Cable in the Classroom have collaborated to develop a program in which parents and teachers mentor their children on how to use the media effectively and watch television responsibly. By providing questionnaires and guidelines, this program helps parents and teachers evaluate and curtail the impact of television violence and commercialism on their children. The program also provides information on TV ratings, how to monitor your chidlren's television, and general research on the effects of television on children. However, the most important thing this program does is to have the TV temporarily turned off and families brought together. Thanks to Vice President Gore, this topic has received much attention recently. But, his emphasis on the government as a solution to this problem is misguided. It is going to be through teacher and parental involvement that children learn responsible television watching. And, it is programs like National Taking Charge of Your TV Week that will make our country stronger and our children safer.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith).

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher).

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 5203.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps my statement might very well clarify things for my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). One may ask why we are bringing up and voting on a bill that includes the legislation which so overwhelmingly passed this House yesterday under suspension of the rules by a vote of 381 to 3, along with the popular pension reform legislation which earlier passed by a vote of 401 to 25 and had at least 181 cosponsors including 81 House Democrats. At a time when Washington reporters like to talk about partisan maneuvering at the end of a season to get Members out of town and back home to their districts, I would like to point out how hard the sponsors of this bill are working, including the Democrats and Republicans alike, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), and the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher), we are working towards bipartisan solutions to important issues on which we agree. We are delivering this to the American people in these closing days of this session of this Congress, but the reason we are taking a series of votes on the same or similar legislation is it that we need to be sure that some form of these important solutions get passed by the other Chamber and get signed into law by the President. Mr. Speaker, I know that a lot of negotiations are going on along Pennsylvania Avenue on a variety of issues, but we are producing results on these items that are most important to the people, the people that I represent in the State of Florida; protecting Social Security and Medicare, protecting and enhancing their retirement security, and protecting our hard-earned money from wasteful Washington spenders. Make no mistake, over the last 6 years, the Republicans have done most of the heavy lifting in cutting wasteful Washington spending and bringing the budget into balance. Now, that there is a surplus, Republicans have begun the process of responsibly paying down the national debt, while protecting Social Security and Medicare and keeping our economy strong so that future generations of Americans inherit a Nation that is free of debt with a healthy thriving economy. In accomplishing this major feat, which less than a decade ago, seemed impossible, Republicans have adhered to some basic principles which continue to guide us as we prepare to address the challenges ahead of us, and that is saving Social Security and Medicare for future generations. These are our basic principles, one, payroll taxes belong to the people who pay into the system, not to the government. Two, the best way to keep Washington from spending more is to take surplus cash off the table and store it in a lockbox that can only be used for Social Security, Medicare or debt reduction. Three, long-term overpayments by taxpayers should be given back to taxpayers in the form of tax relief not co-opted by those in Washington who want to spend more. So it is logical that as we try to keep our economy strong and keep hard-earned dollars in the hands of the wage earners of this country, we focus on pension reform and other components of this goal. Increasing the savings stimulates the economic growth, reducing the government's take on a person's savings and earnings encourages people to save, leaving them more of their savings to keep them through their retirement years. It is no wonder why both these bills are so popular. The question is, why are we having trouble getting similar legislation moved through the other Chamber and on to the President's desk? These are the specific reasons we are bringing up this bill today. First, we want to try again to break the logjam in the other body on moving forward with the Social Security and Medicare lockbox. Republicans have been pushing for this legislation since early last year but have been stonewalled by the minority. Everyone from the President to the Vice President says they want this but the minority in the other body continues to block its consideration. We hope that they are not part of some larger political game; that they will finally agree to the lockbox and get this bill signed into law. Second, Republicans want to set aside $42 billion of the FY 2001 surplus right now for debt relief so that those funds cannot be spent on more government programs. We should not use the surplus to make government bigger; we should use it to make the national debt smaller. We would invite the President and our colleagues in the other body to join us in this historic effort to use 90 percent of the surplus for debt relief. Here is what our lockbox does, and, again, it is identical to the legislation that we have previously passed: one, it sets aside $240 billion for debt reduction for FY 2001 alone. That is 90 percent of the entire surplus in FY 2001 dedicated to paying down the publicly held debt and putting us on to the path of eliminating the debt by the year 2012 or perhaps even sooner. It sets aside 100 percent of the Social Security surplus to pay down the debt until we pass legislation that actually saves Social Security. That is $165 billion of debt reduction in fiscal year 2001 and $2.4 trillion over the next 10 years; $2.4 trillion. It sets aside 100 percent of the Medicare surplus to pay down the debt until we pass legislation that saves Medicare. That is another $32 billion of debt reduction in fiscal year 2001, and another $360 billion over the next 10 years. It sets aside an additional $42 billion of the non-Social Security and non-Medicare surplus for debt reduction. An additional $42 billion of the on-budget surplus would be set aside for debt reduction in a special account in Treasury. The bill is good for millions of Americans, especially working women who have no pension or have inadequate pension coverage today. As we will hear from other speakers today describe in even more detail, we raise the limit of IRAs from $2,000 to $5,000. As we all know, the IRAs are one of the most popular and successful programs ever conceived. As inflation has caught up with the value of the original amount people can set aside, that is $1,500 in 1974 raised to $2,000 in 1981, it makes sense to allow people to do more to save for retirement. Our bill similarly updates 401(k) amounts and improves portability so one can take their retirement nest egg with them when they move from job to job, which is even a greater incentive for younger Americans to start planning for their future earlier. Only half of all private sector workers have any kind of pension and only 20 percent of small business offer retirement plans. So the ability to design an individual program and carry their savings with them is as important as our effort to protect pension plans from the burdens of overtaxation. But do not forget, every single individual in this country stands to benefit from this bill because we will be protecting future generations from debt. We will be making retirement savings grow for workers of all ages, and we will be helping keep hard- earned dollars in the hands of taxpayers rather than sending them to Washington. When given the choice to put dollars in the hands of Washington or keeping them in the pockets of people living in Florida, I would choose to trust my constituents any day. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to remind the gentleman from Washington that in the other body, it is the other party that has been filibustering the lockbox legislation. Perhaps this will break something loose over there. It is very good bipartisan legislation in this body, but in the other body it has not worked that way. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), the author of the lockbox legislation.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Because of what we do here today, if it does pass the other body and the President's desk, little Joshua will owe $240 billion less than he does today on the national debt.

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

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), he has known me long enough to know that I am a man of my word; and I can assure him that these bills are exactly what the gentleman has already supported in the committee and that he has already supported on the floor. I think the gentleman knows that when we get into the closing days, perhaps he knows better than I do, the negotiations that are going on. Two bills as important as these bills are, to merge them together, gives us just another option in which to get these matters before the Senate, to the conference, and to the President's desk for signature. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), the author of the pension portion of this bill. (Mr. PORTMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5203) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to sections 103(a)(2), 103(b)(2), and 213(b)(2)(C) of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2001 to reduce the public debt and decrease the statutory limit on the public debt, and to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for retirement security.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. The Railroad Retirement and Survivors Improvement Act makes important changes to the Railroad Retirement System that will enhance benefits, increase the industry's responsibility over its pension system, and set the stage for more substantial reforms in the future that would make the program a free-standing pension plan. The Railroad Retirement System is divided into two tiers: The first tier resembles Social Security, and the second tier resembles a defined benefit employer pension plan. The second tier is very unique. It resembles a private pension plan, but it is administered by the Federal Government. Benefits are entitled under Federal law. The legislation before us today deals primarily with the second tier, the industry's pension plan. H.R. 4844 makes many improvements to the industry's pension. First, it allows the industry to diversify its assets portfolio by investing in private securities. There is not one single private or state pension system out there today that invests 100 percent of its assets in Treasury bills. Secondly, it allows the industry to invest its pension contributions outside of the Federal Government and outside the Government's control. Third, the proposal increases the industry's responsibility over the financial soundness of its pension plan. In the past, when the system ran into financial trouble, the Government had to bail the program out. Under this bill, there is a mechanism which automatically adjusts the industry's taxes if the program gets into trouble. The responsibility and the investment risk falls on the industry. It does not fall upon the taxpayer. Finally, this legislation takes important steps towards converting the system into a freestanding industry pension plan outside of Federal jurisdiction. Under this bill, the second tier of the Railroad Retirement System becomes more like any other defined benefit employer plan or State pension plan. Its assets are invested in private securities outside of the Treasury, it is governed by a board of trustees who are bound by fiduciary principles similar to ERISA, and also benefit checks are no longer paid by the Treasury. In closing, I would like to emphasize that the benefit changes and the tax changes made by this bill are paid for within the Railroad Retirement System. The Railroad Retirement System is a self-financing program. Like Social Security, it is entirely financed with dedicated payroll taxes on workers and employers and the taxes that retirees pay on the benefits. The costs of this plan are borne by the Railroad Retirement System, not by the taxpayer. Mr. Speaker, I would like to add here in answer to comments by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) that the budgetary impact is primarily due to the fact that these Treasury bills are being cashed in in order to make these investments. That does have a budgetary impact. But the budgetary impact really is minimal, because we will be saving in future years the interest that the Treasury has paid. And it is doing something else; it is retiring much of the public debt that the Federal Government owes, which is something that I think both parties at least say that they support, and I certainly do. Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to support this piece of bipartisan legislation. I would like to say this was a rare situation where we found ourselves in the enviable position of reaching out and crossing the aisle to our friends in the Democrat Party. It was also quite an experience seeing the industry and the unions coming together to ask for these changes. Moreover this bill is a good thing for the United States taxpayers. Let me also add that during the debate today, certain questions have been raised about the budgetary effects of this bill. With this statement, I am submitting a response to these concerns. Again, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation. Response to Concerns 1. The bill increases railroad retirement benefits, reduces railroad payroll taxes, and allows the industry to cash in the government bonds in their Trust Fund. These changes will cost taxpayers $20.8 bill over 10 years ($33 billion when interest is included). The Railroad Retirement system is a self-financing system--just like Social Security. It is paid for with dedicated payroll taxes and taxes that retirees pay on their benefits. The cost of the tax cuts and benefit increases contained in this bill does not fall on the general taxpayer. The cost is wholly paid for with taxes levied on railroad workers, railroad employers, and railroad retirees. The proposal allows the Railroad Retirement system to invest in private-sector securities. This means that most of the Treasury securities currently held in the Railroad Retirement Account must be redeemed so they can be transferred to an independent account outside of Treasury. This one-time cost of redeeming the Treasury securities will be borne by taxpayers. However, this is money that the General Fund owes the Railroad Retirement system. It reflects past surpluses that the government has borrowed from the system and must now repay. 2. The proposal will reduce the budget surplus by $20.8 billion and increase the government's interest costs. The bill reduces the on-budget surplus because the Railroad Retirement system is an on-budget program. As a result, any changes to the system will affect the on-budget surplus--just like changes to Social Security affect the off-budget surplus. The bill would not increase the government's interest costs. In fact, the Treasury securities in the Railroad Retirement Account are part of the total government debt. Once they are redeemed, the total government debt will fall, and so will the associated interest payments. 3. The bill maintains a special subsidy available to no other industry. Under current law, the income taxes paid by railroad retirees on their retirement benefits are transferred to the Railroad Retirement system instead of the U.S. Treasury. This subsidy costs taxpayers nearly $6 billion. This is not a subsidy, and it doesn't cost taxpayers anything. The tax is not paid by the general taxpayer--it is paid by railroad retirees. Appropriately, the revenues from the tax go back to the Railroad Retirement system instead of the General Fund of the Treasury. In the same vein, the taxes that seniors pay on their Social Security benefits go back to the Social Security Trust Fund instead of the General Fund. 4. ERISA standards were designed to ensure that companies properly funded their pension plans. However, the railroad industry has a $39.7 billion unfunded liability. Instead of moving toward a funded system, this bill allows the Railroad Industry to enjoy lower taxes and higher benefits now in exchange for higher taxes or lower benefits in the future. The Railroad Retirement system is not subject to ERISA, and it is not a funded system. Instead, it is a pay-as-you-go system where annual tax revenues are used to pay annual benefits. The trust fund balances in the Railroad Retirement Account are currently large enough to pay more than 5 years worth of benefits. This is considered quite high for a pay-as-you-go system. That's why the system can afford to cut taxes and pay higher benefits. Although the system can afford these changes in the short run, it may not be able to afford them over time. As a result, the proposal includes a provision that allows the tax rate to adjust each year based on the system's funding situation. For the first time ever, the burden of maintaining the system's solvency will fall on the railroad industry--not the general taxpayer. Many experts and commissions have recommended that the Railroad Retirement system should be converted into a fully-funded system covered by ERISA. However, it would be very difficult to take this step without the industry's support. This bill is a step in the right direction because it puts the mechanisms in place to move toward a free-standing pension plan outside of federal jurisdiction. If this bill is enacted, the system would resemble a private pension plan, making it much easier to make the transition in the future. 5. The bill will reduce the solvency of the Railroad Retirement system. Under current law, the Railroad Retirement system is solvent over 75 years under optimistic and intermediate assumptions. The actuaries of the Railroad Retirement Board have certified that the system remains solvent for 75 years under the provisions of this bill. 6. The bill sets a bad precedent for Social Security reform--instead of creating personal accounts with individual ownership and control, this bill creates a government-appointed board to invest in the stock market on a collective basis. This proposal primarily affects the second tier of the Railroad Retirement system--the part that resembles a private employer pension plan. Because this bill mostly deals with the industry pension, not the Social Security equivalent, the changes made by this bill cannot (and should not) translate to the Social Security program. After all, Social Security is a social insurance program--it is not a pension plan.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to point out to my friend from California (Mr. Matsui) that the Matsui Telephone Tax Repeal, I did not see it on the chart, but I certainly support it and congratulate him for his effort.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I do not believe I yielded. I do not think that any of the Republican tax reductions that were on this chart are part of this package either. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), an esteemed member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, these people have all voted to repeal this tax, this Republican tax, this Republican tax relief bill. I think it is extraordinarily important to look at what we are doing. This is not a question of doing this for any other reason except to get rid of this tax because this tax is wrong. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of rhetoric regarding Medicare. I would like to read a paragraph from a memorandum from the Department of Health and Human Services, from the chief actuary, Richard Foster, that is from the Department of Health and Human Services, in which he says that the proposal would have no financial impact on the HI Trust Fund, no financial impact. That is from Health and Human Services. That is not a question of a Republican administration adding this issue. So I think that it is a bogus argument. The argument before the House is very, very clear. Do we want to give people or continue to tax Social Security benefits at 85 percent of amount received for people of incomes of $34,000 and more? To talk about this is some kind of a deal for our rich friends is absolutely ludicrous, unless my colleagues think people making $34,000 a year are rich. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lewis), a member of the House Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), and he is my friend, that the Republicans would like to take complete credit for this bill, but we do have allies on his side: the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle), the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Barcia), and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Forbes). They have all cosponsored similar legislation. Let us go over to the Senate for a minute: Senator Feinstein, Senator Conrad, Senator Dorgan, Senator Johnson. Point of Order