E. Shaw

Mr. SHAW

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

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time. Mr. Speaker, we have this afternoon talked about from the other side of the aisle just about everything except the taxpayer, just about everything except what is really going on here. What we are trying to do is to give some relief to our senior citizens, who, incidentally, the monies that they put into the Social Security trust fund they were taxed on. These were not pretax dollars. The employee's portion is taxed. So why should we have to say it is taxed when they put it in, and it is taxed when they take it out? That is wrong. The whole idea of having this thing taxed on only 50 percent is because that was the monies that were put in by the employer that were not ever taxed to the employee. We need to go back to that. A lot has been said about what are we going to do if we are running the Government at a deficit. Well, I have to remind my colleagues from the other side of the aisle, when this tax was put in place, this was in 1993, the Democrats were in charge of the House of Representatives, and there was a deficit. There was a deficit every year. The money was found. It came out of the general revenue stream. That is exactly where it is going to come from now. We are just not pinpointing that it is going to come out of a tax that is morally wrong. It is wrong to tax people on getting their own money back. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the Democratic substitute, and I would ask for a ``yes'' vote on the bipartisan tax relief bill.

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. WELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would remind the former speaker, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), that what he is referring to, the Treasury bill, as IOUs is all that is in there right now. So this makes absolutely no difference. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and say to the gentleman who just spoke, the gentleman from California, when he talks about prescription drugs, I support making prescription drugs part of Medicare. And I hope this Congress can finally come together in a bipartisan way and approve a plan where we can give our seniors some relief. The gentleman is absolutely right. There are people out there that are having to make the tough choice between whether to buy groceries or to buy prescription drugs. The problem is a lot of people out there just making a little over $34,000 a year, they do not have a choice as to whether to pay taxes on their Social Security benefits or to buy prescription drugs. This tax is morally wrong, and that is why we are trying to pass this bill and will pass this bill, and we will get a lot of help from our Democratic friends in doing so. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the gentleman in the well, was he speaking for or against the substitute?

Mr. SHAW. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman hears me but she is obviously not listening. If she would listen, what I am saying is that the same Treasury bills that are put into the Medicare Trust Fund today will be put into the Medicare Trust Fund with this legislation. It is exactly the same. It is exactly the same. The gentlewoman can stand here and say this is not a real economic asset, but if it is not a real economic asset under the Republican bipartisan plan that we are arguing today, it is not a real economic asset today because it is the same Treasury bills. That is exactly the point that I am trying to make. So let us not get this confused. I do not blame the people who are opposing this bill for not wanting to talk about giving seniors some tax relief, the taxpayers who just make a little over $34,000 a year, I am not blaming my colleagues for wanting to talk about something else, but let us keep this record straight and let us be very clear on what we are speaking to. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, this bill, a portion of this bill, requires that the Commissioner of Customs enter into a fee-for-service agreement to provide international air cargo customs service at the Fort Lauderdale- Hollywood International Airport. Because of the difficulties that the airport has experienced in establishing the fee-for-service arrangements, the airport recently lost significant international air cargo business at its facility. The provision of cargo clearance, inspection and other Customs services is a fundamental governmental function. Once Customs cargo inspection services have been provided under a fee-for-service agreement for 2 years, and the Airport has established air cargo business of at least 29,000 commercial consumption entries a year, the Commissioner will provide Customs services to the Airport without requiring additional fees for those services. This will merely put the Ft. Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport on the same basis as other airports of similar size where such Customs services are already available. Another portion of this bill, which I was pleased to sponsor, provides for customs fees on arrival of ferries. The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 precluded Customs from charging customs user fees for passengers on ferry boats. This has prevented Customs from issuing landing rights to ferries arriving in South Florida and its coastal region. To correct this situation, COBRA is amended to permit the collection of customs user fees to enable Customs to issue landing rights to ferries operating in South Florida. Ferries will now be able to operate between the United States and other Caribbean countries, provided they are within 300 miles of the United States. This will help promote tourism and trade. Another area which I am hopeful will become a part of this bill before it is finally enacted into law was a provision I was working on with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), and that is the question of prohibiting the sale of gray market cigarettes. These are cigarettes that are produced in the United States for export into other countries but somehow find their way back into this country. The presence of these cigarettes is going to cost my own State of Florida about $100 million a year, and it is time we act on this and stop the reimportation of these cigarettes that are produced for the foreign market.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, as a father of young, working children, with working spouses, I am concerned that our tax system is penalizing them, and over 42,000 other working couples in my district, for making the sacrifices necessary to support their families. Our tax system create penalties for being married in different ways. The tax laws do not allow married couples to earn twice as much taxable income as single taxpayers before higher tax rates take effect. The higher rates mean that spouses earn less after taxed than if they were single. The standard deduction for a single taxpayer is currently $4,300. But for married couple the standard deduction is not doubled to $8,600--it is only $7,200. Millions of middle class working families who don't itemize deductions wind up paying a penalty because they are married. Whatever form it takes, the ``marriage penalty'' is a tax bias against the working spouse with lower earnings. This means it is disproportionately a tax bias against working women taxpayers. Is this tax fairness? Married working women see a higher tax bite than their single counterparts because our tax laws fail to tax them on the same footing as single taxpayers. It's time to stop punishing working Americans. We encourage Americans to work, and we encourage single mothers and fathers to marry to benefit their children, and now we are fixing the tax system so that it makes marriage affordable. I urge you to pass this legislation.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3125, the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act of 2000. This legislation is necessary to stem the rising tide of Internet gambling, which is largely unregulated and unreachable by American authorities. Mr. Speaker, Internet gambling has the potential to make thousands of Americans who enjoy video games into gambling addicts. All that an Internet gambler needs to play casino-style games on the Internet is a computer, a modem, and a credit card--and therein lies the dangerous allure of this type of wagering. Unlike a glitzy casino where playing games of chance is a social experience, Internet gambling is usually done alone, with the only limit being the limit on one's credit card. I believe that gambling over the Internet has the potential to turn a generation of children who are addicted to video games into a generation of adults addicted to playing casino-style games over the Internet. Furthermore, most of the cyber-casinos are located in the Caribbean, so that the few gamblers who do win have no recourse if there is a dispute. Mr. Speaker, banning Internet gambling now will prevent much more serious social problems later. For that reason, I urge all of my colleagues to vote for passage of H.R. 3125.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the gentleman and the colleagues that originally cosponsored this bipartisan plan on both sides of the aisle. Mr. Speaker, there can be criticism for this plan. There is no question about that. No plan is perfect. But let us look closely at what this plan offers. It offers choice. Our seniors want choice. That is an important thing. It offers catastrophic care on drugs, and that is tremendously important. The expense of drugs is becoming more and more expensive as they become more and more sophisticated and more and more part of our health care plan. This is a tremendously important step. Can we do more? Yes. But should we get into a bidding war? Should we turn this into an auction? No. We need to put this plan into place. It is a good plan. We can say it is a good first step; we can do more. This is the plan that we are working with, and this is the plan that I am very hopeful that we will retain our bipartisan support for. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4680, the Medicare Prescription 2000, which is a historic first step towards modernizing the Medicare health benefits that nearly 40 million senior citizens and disabled citizens of all ages rely on for all their health care needs. Mr. Speaker, I have the honor of representing a congressional district that is home to the largest number of senior citizens and Medicare beneficiaries in America. So perhaps more than other member of this House, I am concerned about doing what is best for preserving and improving the Medicare program which has served seniors and the disabled so well for the past thirty-five years. Is the current Medicare program perfect? Does the current Medicare program cover every service and meet every medical problem that seniors and the disabled have? We all know that it doesn't. No one knows better than I do, as Chairman of the House Social Security Subcommittee, that both the Social Security and Medicare programs need to be updated in order to be prepared for the large wave of baby boomers who will begin retiring soon. This Congress, and the last Congress and the next Congress have been grappling with the many competing ideas for modernizing Social Security and Medicare. There clearly is no consensus on what the silver bullet is for Social Security or for Medicare. What is clear is that I am committed to work with Chairman Archer and Chairman Thomas and all my colleagues on the Ways and Means Committee and, indeed, all the members of this House to improve these two programs that provide security for the seniors I represent. What I would say to my colleagues who claim that H.R. 4680 isn't adequate, is that it is a very good first step. Let me be clear, however, this is just not just a symbolic first step--this bill will provide real prescription drug coverage for any senior who chooses it. As a matter of fact, choice is one of the most important features of Medicare Prescription 2000. H.R. 4680 preserve's senior's choice on many different levels. First, I respect my seniors wishes to choose the coverage that is best for their individuals health care needs. I also respect individuals wishes to choose to not participate in one of these new Medicare prescription drug programs. Second, many of my seniors-- over 150 of them--have taken the time to write and call me over the last month in order to let me know how happy they are with the prescription drug coverage and other benefits they are receiving through their Medicare+Choice HMOs. Mr. Speaker, this bill will respect their wishes to choose to remain in their Medicare+Choice plans. Third, this bill also protects the many retirees who have excellent retiree prescription drug coverage through their former employer. Finally, and most importantly, this bill gives seniors who want to participate the choice between at least two different prescription drug plans no matter where they live. Whether a senior lives in a large metropolitan area like the greater Miami-Ft Lauderdale-Palm Beach area or in the rural areas of Central Florida or in the Mid-West, every senior will be able to choose a plan that is best for them--not a plan that a government bureaucrat imposes on them and every other senior citizen in America. I, for one, do not believe, like the President's does, that the Health Care Financing Administration should make this choice for seniors. Under his plan, the President wouldn't give seniors any such choice. It would force seniors to choose between a government-run plan or nothing. Another important provision of this bill is peace of mind for every senior citizen who fears that they and their loved ones could be faced with large drug bills reaching into the hundreds of thousand of dollars. The Medicare Prescription 2000 bill protects all seniors from catastrophic drug expenses--once a senior's drug costs exceed $6000 in a year, this plan will completely cover the rest of their drugs for the year. Unfortunately, the President's plan did not protect beneficiaries from these huge expenses until our Republican plan came out--now the President has agreed that this was a major oversight in his plan and has agreed to support it. Mr. Speaker, this plan also has special provisions to make sure that low-income seniors will have all their drug expenses covered by Medicare. And this plan helps make prescription drugs more affordable for all seniors by ensuring that they get the same drug-price discounts that each of us enjoys when we buy drugs through our private health insurance plans. The Congressional Budget Office has calculated that my seniors will save at least 25 percent on every prescription they buy under our plan. Other experts estimate that seniors could save between 30-35 percent on every drug purchase. I would like to close by saying that the Medicare Prescription Drug 2000 bill will help the many seniors I represent who currently have no coverage. Am I satisfied that this is all Congress needs to do to improve the Medicare? No, I am not. But I am satisfied that this is a good place to start--just as Chairman Archer and I have done in announcing the outlines of our Social Security Reform proposal. By announcing the Archer-Shaw plan, we have started a rush of excellent Social Security reform ideas and suggestions from both parties. I believe that passage of H.R. 4680 will engender the continuation of a similarly energetic debate on how to build upon this newly created Medicare prescription drug benefit. I urge all my colleagues to vote yes on Medicare Prescription 2000.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, House Concurrent Resolution 312 puts this Congress on record as opposing the predatory and unscrupulous lending practices of the title loan industry. As many of my colleagues are aware, abuse by the title loan industry is an ever-increasing problem all across America. These fringe banking services offer short-term loans to people unable to borrow from traditional lending institutions, taking the consumer's car, title and spare keys as collateral. The interest rate on these loans which are usually not adequately disclosed to the borrower are so exorbitant that debtors frequently must take out additional loans just to pay the interest on the initial lien, sending them deeper and deeper into debt. These rates can often be as much as 300 percent, and, in some cases, even higher. Take, for example, the blight of a Miami, Florida, resident whom I will simply call John. As reported in the Miami Herald, John, in need of cash to pay bills, borrowed $1,000, using the spare keys of his car as collateral. Not fully aware of the terms of the loan, he was quickly incapable of making the monthly interest-only payments of $220 and subsequently took out additional loans just to pay the interest on the initial loan. This amounts to an annual rate of nearly 350 percent. Now knee-deep in debt and fearful that any day his car would be repossessed, which would likely cost him his job, John struggled to pay back what amounted to three times his initial loan. He eventually ended up destitute and in a homeless shelter. Unfortunately, this one example is not uncommon and reflects the cases of far too many Americans who have found themselves trapped in an ever-worsening cycle of debt because of the title loan industry. As this industry spreads across this country, more and more States are taking action to eliminate this type of institutional usury. Just last month, in my home State, Florida, Governor Jeb Bush signed into law legislation limiting the outrageous rates that loan companies in Florida had been charging and limited it to 30 percent. Nationwide recognition of this problem is needed. However, title loan companies can circumvent prohibitions imposed by individual States by crossing State lines and filing the proper paperwork in a State that has yet to regulate this industry. The result is that loan companies continue to spread like wildfire in States which are unregulated, and more and more people find themselves swimming in outrageous debt. This problem will persist until elected officials make the protection of their constituents a priority and rein in this fringe industry. Mr. Speaker, passage of this resolution will put those who engage in this type of legal loan-sharking on notice that such predatory lending practices will no longer be tolerated. Although a number of States like Florida have stopped the title loan industry in its tracks, much remains to be done and Congress may need to play a role. While respecting the rights of the States to improve upon existing consumer protection laws, H. Con. Res. 312 makes it clear that, if necessary, Congress will take appropriate action to combat predatory lending practices. Mr. Speaker, H. Con. Res. 312 puts Congress on record as condemning the practice of legal loan-sharking and opposing usury and unfair lending practices. I urge my colleagues to take this opportunity to express their concern for the consumer rights of their constituents and support this resolution. This resolution goes to protect the most vulnerable in our society from some of the most unscrupulous practices in our society.

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, and perhaps one day to 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. Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, June 23, 2000 the Graphic International Communications 2000 meeting will commence in Orlando, Florida. Graphic International Communications is an international marketing organization representing pioneering companies in seventeen nations around the world. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Florida Congressional Delegation, it is my honor to welcome those participating in the Graphic International Communications annual conference to Florida. Serving as the host of this event is Merchandising & Marketing Corporation. As a corporation located in my Congressional District, I am proud that they have been chosen to host this important conference. In fact, this is the second time that the Merchandising & Marketing Corporation has been chosen to host this event. I congratulate them on their selection, and I am sure that the Graphic International Communications annual meeting will be a major success.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation that if enacted would update and improve Social Security's payment systems for claimant representatives. Currently, many would-be beneficiaries hire attorneys to help them file applications for Social Security retirement and, most commonly, disability benefits. That this process is so complex people feel obligated to hire an attorney to help them is in itself a serious problem. It is especially troubling given the expected rapid growth in the number of applicants and beneficiaries with the aging and eventual retirement of the Baby Boomers. So much work remains in the area of simplifying the application process, which will benefit applicants, SSA, and ultimately taxpayers. For now, though, a good start would be finding a better way to pay claimants' representatives and to have SSA process this workload as quickly and efficiently as possible. First some background. Some Members may be aware that attorneys can choose to have SSA directly pay their fees for representing claimants for Social Security disability benefits. In such cases, when the claimant is awarded past-due benefits SSA withholds the appropriate attorney's fee from the benefits that are owned the claimant, and sends the fee directly to the attorney. Prior to this year, no charge was made for SSA costs in processing, withholding, and forwarding this fee. This was changed under a proposal originally made by the Clinton Administration that was incorporated in the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Law, which is designed to help disabled individuals enter or return to the workforce. This law provides new medical and employment services to help individuals with disabilities find and keep jobs without fear of losing important benefits once they leave the disability rolls. That's a critical goal, and one that requires additional resources. In determining ways to pay for the added benefits in the ``Ticket'' law, many people on both sides of the aisle thought that having lawyers--rather than the Social Security trust funds--pick up the tab for Social Security's costs in processing their paychecks was appropriate. Thus a version of the original Administration proposal on attorney fees was included in the final conference agreement on the Ticket bill approved by the House of Representatives 418-2 on November 18, 1999. As this legislation progressed, several changes were made that improved the original proposal. For example, the General Accounting Office is required to study whether the assessment should be linked to how quickly SSA processes fees and whether the assessment will reduce the number of claimant representatives available to assist these claimants, among other issues. The legislation I am introducing addresses this issue and thus can serve as the basis for further discussion and possible legislation on this point. In short, my legislation would specify that Social Security could impose an assessment on an attorney's fee only if the fee was processed and approved for payments within 30 days after the Commissioner certifies the payment of the claimant's benefits. This will encourage Social Security to handle this work promptly. If they don's SSA will lose money and attorneys will not be charged their assessment. Hopefully it will not come to that, but in the past SSA has not had a stellar record in terms of processing this workload in a timely fashion. Introducing this legislation now will serve to further discussion on this topic, especially in anticipation of an upcoming hearing I plan to hold in the Social Security Subcommittee on additional process reforms. Suggested reforms include: the consideration of a flat fee as opposed to a percentage of past-due benefits, the extension of the attorney's fee direct payment provisions to the Supplemental Security Income program, the issuance of past-due benefits and the attorney's fee in a joint check made payable to the beneficiary and the attorney and the application of Prompt Payment Act provisions to past-due benefits and attorney fee payments. These suggested reforms follow this statement in legislative form. I would appreciate any comments or suggestions for additional provisions my colleagues or other informed individuals may have on this issue, and of course would welcome cosponsors to this legislation. Already we have heard from many claimant representatives, and I would expect to hear from many more as we move on with this issue. Suggested Provisions for Attorney Fee Payment Legislation Streamlining of Attorney Fee Payment System (a) Maximum Limit on Assessments.--Section 206(d)(2)(A) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 406(d)(2)(A)) is amended-- (1) by striking ``equal to'' and inserting ``equal to the lesser of--''; (2) by striking ``the product obtained'' and inserting the following: ``(i) the product obtained''; (3) by striking ``subparagraph (B).'' and inserting ``subparagraph (B), or''; and (4) by adding at the end the following new clause: ``(ii) $25.00.'' (b) Issuance of Joint Checks.-- (1) In General.--Section 206 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 406) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection: ``(e) Issuance of Joint Checks.--In any case in which a claimant is determined to be entitled to past-due benefits, and such claimant is represented by an attorney for whom a fee for services is required to be certified under this section in connection with such benefits, the payment of such past-due benefits shall be in the form of a joint check made payable to both the claimant and the attorney in an amount equal to the total amount of such past due benefits, which shall be sent to the claimant's attorney. Receipt by the claimant's attorney of the proceeds of such check in an amount equal to the fee for services certified for payment by the Commissioner pursuant to subsection (a)(4)(A) or (b)(1)(A) in connection with such past-due benefits shall constitute receipt by the attorney of such fee.''. (2) Assessment on Attorney Contingent Upon Timely Receipt of Payment.--Section 206(d)(3) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 406(d)(3)) is amended--Section 206(d)(3) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 406(d)(3)) is amended-- (1) by striking ``The Commissioner'' and inserting the following: ``(A) In General.--The Commissioner''; and (2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph: ``(B) Imposition and Collection of Assessment Contingent Upon Timely Receipt of Check.--The Commissioner may impose and collect the assessment under this subsection in connection with any past-due benefits only if the joint check required under subsection (e) in connection with such benefits is received by the attorney within 45 days after the certification by the Commissioner for payment of such benefits.''. Extension of Attorney Fee Payment System To Title XVI Claims (a) In General.--Section 1631(d)(2)(A) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1383(d)(2)(A)) is amended-- (1) by striking ``paragraph (2)'' and inserting ``subsections (a)(2) and (b)(1)(B)''; (2) by striking ``section 406(a) (other than in paragraph (4) thereof)'' and inserting ``section 406''; (3) in clause (i), by striking ``subparagraphs (A)(ii)(I) and (C)(i)'' and inserting ``subsections (a)(2)(A)(ii)(I), (a)(2)(D)(i), and (b)(1)(B)'', by striking ``as determined'', by striking ``1127(a))'' and inserting ``1127(a)'', and by striking ``the parenthetical phrase contained therein'' and inserting ``the phrase `before any applicable reduction under section 1127(a)' ''; and (4) in clause (ii), by inserting ``, in subsections (a)(2)(B) and (b)(1)(A)(i), the phrase'' after ``substituting'', and by inserting ``the phrase'' after ``for''. Extension of the Prompt Payment Act to the Social Security Administration's Claims and Attorney Fee Payment Systems (a) In General.--Section 3901 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection: ``(e)(1) This chapter applies to the Social Security Administration with regard to delays in the payment of claims under Title II and Title XVI of the Social Security Act and to the certification for the payment of fees to attorneys under sections 206 and 1631(d)(2) of the Social Security Act (treating, for purposes of this chapter, the required certification by the Commissioner of Social Security for payment of any fees as a required payment by the Commissioner of such fees). ``(2) In applying this chapter to the Social Security Administration pursuant to paragraph (1)-- ``(A) the date of issuance of the award certificate by the Social Security Administration shall be deemed to start the payment period under 5 CFR 1315.4(f); and ``(B) the documentation required by the Social Security Administration to certify a claim or fee payment under title 42, United States Code shall be deemed to satisfy the documentation requirement of 5 CFR 1315.9''.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, much has been said on this floor that is simply not true. What is threatening Social Security today? The inaction of the other side of the aisle, the uncooperative spirit, not all Members. I am not speaking to all Members there. But we have reached out to the Democrats time and time again with the Archer-Shaw proposal. We have been met with this wall of silence. We have reached out to the President who made this his big promise in facing the Nation, standing right behind where I am standing today. We have been met with a wall of silence. That is what is threatening Social Security today, not elimination of the death tax. What I think has been missing from this debate and is certainly missing from the substitute is the answer to the question that each Member should ask themselves as they come down here to vote today. Is the death tax a just tax? Should the event of death be taxed by the United States Congress and collected by the Internal Revenue Service? Should the family have to meet with the Internal Revenue Service the same day they meet with the undertaker? Is that a just tax? Is it a just tax? Is it a just tax that will destroy jobs and destroy businesses and destroy family farms? Is that a just tax? Is it a just tax to tax again at the highest rate that we have in our whole tax system, funds and wealth that has already been taxed by our income tax and God knows how many other taxes? Is that a just tax? I think the resounding answer is no. That is not a just tax. To say we are going to lessen the effect of it by the substitute that does not make it an even more or any more just tax. The fact that maybe the wealthy are getting, or top 2 percent are the only estates that are being taxed in this country, is that a reason to keep an unjust tax? That is not what this country is all about. That is not what this Congress is all about. Let us reject the substitute. Let us get rid of this unjust tax, and let us vote to repeal the death tax forever more.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I, too, want to congratulate the chairman on a very fine bill. As the chairman of the Subcommittee on Social Security, I would like to discuss the provisions of H.R. 4577 that fund the social security programs. Social security touches nearly every American family. In 1999, the Social Security Administration paid social security and SSI benefits to more than 50 million beneficiaries. Without a doubt, continuing to provide timely, accurate benefits and world class service will remain Social Security's number one mission in the years ahead. This mission will become more complicated as the huge 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 wave of retirements by its own workers and high expectations from customers, that's a great challenge. This is no idle concern. Although Social Security is widely regarded as among the best-administered federal programs, the need to improve public service was highlighted in a recent report by the bipartisan Social Security Advisory Board. This report 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.'' That's why I'm pleased that the amount of funding provided for the Social Security Administration is very close to the Administration's request. The Commissioner requested, and was denied, a further $200 million increase by the President. Through this bill, the Social Security Administration's funding has increased by nearly half a billion dollars compared to last year. That's a 7 percent increase, substantial by most standards as we try to adhere to our overall spending blueprint. I, for one, am quite willing to add resources to the Social Security Administration to provide better service, increase productivity, combat waste, fraud, and abuse, and further modernize technology at the agency. House floor action is just the first step. The Senate expects to approve funding at a level slightly higher but close to ours. We will then have the opportunity to work with the Administration to arrive at agreeable funding levels. Unfortunately, this agency finds itself in the midst of a very unusual set of budgetary rules. Its administrative expenses paid directly from payroll tax receipts, all benefits are considered mandatory expenses, yet due to complex and unclear scoring rules the costs to run this agency are counted as part of the discretionary spending cap. With budget surpluses both in the Social Security and non-Social Security categories, it is time for Congress to clarify these antiquated and haphazardly drawn budget rules so the Social Security Administration can effectively prepare for the service delivery challenges of the baby boom retirement. Workers who finance this vital program with their hard-earned wages will expect nothing less. In the coming days, I will introduce legislation which frees the Social Security Administration from these outdated scorekeeping rules to ensure workers and their families receive the public service they paid for and so well deserve. Earlier this year, I had the opportunity to testify before the Labor- HHS Subcommittee regarding to show my commitment to the goal of doubling funding for the National Institutes of Health. The breath- taking pace of NIH-sponsored research being conducted by scientists nationwide is only dwarfed by the tremendous amount of very promising research that is not yet funded. I strongly support the $20.8B in funding for NIH, a $2.7B increase over the current year. I would also like to briefly highlight my support for several specific areas of NIH research funded in this bill for Alzheimer's Disease, Cancer, Alpha 1 (alpha-1-proteinase inhibitor deficiency) and Polycystic Kidney Disease (PKD). I also support H.R. 4577 because it contains $70.4B in funding for Medicare and $93.5B for the federal share of Medicaid. Make no mistake about it--this Congress is keeping our promise to provide health care to the most vulnerable Americans--seniors, women and children. And speaking of our children, there is no more important issue than education. I am proud that H.R. 4577 contains an increase of $1.65B for education programs. Roughly $40B will dedicated to the education of our children next year and this education funding deserves our strong support. Let me say that I believe we all wish that we could provide a larger increase for education programs, however, we also have a fiduciary responsibility to our children and grandchildren, and this bill does a good job of balancing each of these important priorities. In closing, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4577. It is a good bill put together by an excellent Chairman, Mr. Porter. I thank Mr. Porter for his exemplary tenure, and wish him the best in his retirement. Mr. Chairman, we plan to offer some legislation in the next few days which will help us as the baby boomers get into this very important retirement program.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize and congratulate Terry Styles for receiving the Developer of the Year Award for 2000. The National Association of Industrial and Office Properties presented Stiles Corporation with this award. This is a first for a developer in South Florida. This prestigious honor, which is only given to one company each year, illustrates the vibrant industry that entrepreneurs such as Terry Stiles are creating in South Florida. Stiles Corp. met the six requirements necessary to win the award from NAIOP. The criteria include quality products and services, civic involvement in their communities, and financial consistency and stability. South Florida can use more outstanding companies such as Stiles Corp. I ask the House to Join me in paying tribute to a great businessman.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I pay tribute to Broward County's Fire Rescue service. Recently, they were named the number one emergency and medical service in the state of Florida. Broward Fire Rescue has had many outstanding accomplishments this year. They received a grant of $100,000 to put automatic external defibrillators in public buildings. This program is intended to quicken the process of helping heart attack victims. They were also the first agency in the county to give the heart attack clot-busting drug, Retavase, to patients while on the way to the hospital. In addition, the fire-rescue workers transport heart attack and stroke victims to the county hospital that is best equipped patients rather than just the nearest one. Furthermore, the agency began airing fire-safety announcements before films at Muvico theaters. I would particularly like to honor the men and women of Broward Fire Rescue for their tireless efforts of providing care for the injured and sick. Without these individuals, the accomplishments listed above would not be possible. The agency should be recognized for their hard work and dedication to Broward County and its residents.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and pay tribute to an outstanding scholar and student leader, Chaim Dov Sacks. Dovi Sacks was recently named a Presidential Scholar, an award presented to two outstanding students from every U.S. state and territory. The award recognizes student leadership, SAT scores, and participation in the community. Dovi excelled in all these categories. He is the student body president, and a National Merit Scholarship Finalist who received a perfect 1600 on his SAT at Pine Crest Academy. Dovi has brought further recognition to Fort Lauderdale's prestigious Pine Crest Academy. The school has had two Presidential Scholars in the past two years, and Dovi is the third in three years, an unprecedented feat. Just this year Pine Crest had 3 perfect SAT scores and 32 graduating seniors planning to attend Ivy League schools. I know the House will join me in recognizing and honoring this outstanding scholar and wish him continued success as a future leader of the country. In addition, I would like to acknowledge Pine Crest Academy for their excellence in education and hope for continued achievement in teaching.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, today, I recognize a special birthday celebration within Florida's 22nd congressional district. On Sunday, May 21st, 2000, residents and friends of North Bay Village will celebrate its 55th birthday. For my colleagues unfamiliar with North Bay Village, it is a wonderful little community in Miami-Dade County consisting of three islands, North Bay Island, Harbor Island and Treasure Island. Incorporated in 1945, North Bay Village is the home to 5,650 Floridians. Mr. Speaker, North Bay Village was home to the Shaw family for many years. In 1943, two years prior to incorporation, I along with my parents, Dr. E. Clay Shaw, Sr. and Rita Walker Shaw called this community home. We settled in North Bay Village before two of the islands had yet been created, and we lived in one of the 10 original homes built on the island. At that time, the bridges connecting the island to the mainland were made of wood and we had many vacant lots on which to play ball. After incorporation in 1945, North Bay Village began rapid growth; yet one could still stand on high ground and count the houses. Today, under the leadership of Mayor Ignacio Diaz, City Manager Rafael Casals, and the North Bay Village Council, I am proud to call North Bay Village the home of Clay and Rita Shaw. Mr. Speaker, my congratulations to the 5,650 residents and Mayor Diaz on this wonderful day.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, today I honor and pay tribute to the Northeast Rebels Cheerleaders for their efforts and contributions in the USACF National Competition held at the Charlotte Coliseum, in Charlotte, North Carolina. The Northeast Rebels is a self-supported league and has four cheerleading teams, averaging approximately 300 children, from the ages of 7-15 years of age. Cheerleaders tryout for the team based on their age group, with a maximum of 20 girls per squad. Each year all four divisions of cheerleading squads compete against other county leagues in the same classification for the NBFL Cheerleading Competition. They also compete in the Broward County Fair Competition and in 1999, all four teams won 1st place in their division. In particular I would like to recognize their accomplishments of the A&B Team in the Junior Recreation Division and the C-Team in the Youth Recreation Division at the USACF National Competition held at the Charlotte Coliseum, Charlotte North Carolina on April 1 and 2. The A&B Team placed 2nd in the Junior Recreation Division and the C Team won the National Championship in the Youth Recreation Division. To prepare for competition, the managers and coaches spend many hours making up dances, cheers, formations, stunts & choreography. They volunteer not only for community hours, but they also have the satisfaction that they have inspired and impacted the girls they coach. The admiration of the cheerleaders for their coaches, is evident in their performances. I know the House will join me in paying tribute to this outstanding team of people and wish them continued success in their endeavors: Lori Thompson, Stacy Guy, Shannon Troyer, Amanda Nutter, Gina Mariatti, Katie Birge, Rachel Maggi, Paige Becerra, Angelina DiCandia, Melanie Dhaveloose, Stephanie Ely, Heidi Friedman, Samantha Gasperic, Melanie Gent, Joanne Maglorie, Julie McGaha, Jamie McMillan, Lauren Mitchell, Elizabeth Montero, Lexy Spellacy, and Samantha Tomaro.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I ask that this House, and indeed, our nation pause on this Yom Hashoah--the Day of Remembrance--to remember the Six Million Jewish Men, Women and Children who perished during the Holocaust in the last century. While there were many positive legacies of the twentieth century, the Holocaust stands out as one of the most negative, shameful legacies--a legacy that must never be forgotten. I believe it is appropriate to mark this first Yom Hashoah of the Twenty-first Century with appropriate recognition. As one of the statues that stands as a vigilant sentinel outside of the National Archives here in Washington, D.C. is inscribed ``What's Past is Prologue.'' Without our nation's efforts to ensure that this tragedy is remembered by remembering each of its victims, such a tragedy could happen again. Therefore, as Chairman of the Florida Congressional Delegation, I am proud to join Florida governor Jeb Bush is recognizing today, Tuesday, May 2, 2000, as a ``Day of Tolerance'' in our State. The promotion of tolerance for Florida citizens of all races, religions and ethnicities on this solemn day will be a small tribute to the memory of those Holocaust victims--victims of the Shoah--that are not here today to enjoy the dawn of this new century.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), a distinguished member of the Florida delegation and chairman of the Subcommittee on International Economic Policy and Trade of the Committee on International Relations.