E. Shaw

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of Senate Concurrent Resolution 71, which is a bipartisan concurrent resolution expressing the sense of the Congress that Miami and not a competing foreign city should serve as a permanent location for the Free Trade Area of the Americas Secretariat, FTAA, beginning in the year 2005. I introduced the companion House concurrent resolution, House Concurrent Resolution 217, to the legislation before us today. I am pleased that nearly every member of the Florida delegation is a cosponsor of this bill. Mr. Speaker, in 1998 the trade ministers of 34 Western Hemisphere countries agreed to create a permanent Secretariat in order to support negotiations on establishing the free trade area of the Americas. The temporary site of the FTAA Secretariat is now located in Miami. Starting next year, the FTAA Secretariat will rotate to Panama City and then rotate to Mexico City until the year 2005. The purpose of this legislation is to put the Congress on record as supporting Miami for the permanent location of the FTAA talks. This legislation is particularly good news for South Florida. If the FTAA permanently locates in Miami, thousands of jobs will be created to support this institution. Miami will join the ranks of Washington, D.C. and New York as the only American cities to host a large international organization. If Miami is ultimately chosen, some day Miami may be as closely associated as being the center of world trade as now it is known for its famous beaches and sunshine and climate. Locating the FTAA talks in Miami also will make sense on a practical level. The city of Miami and Miami- Dade County and the State of Florida have long served as the gateway for trade with the Caribbean Nations and Latin America. Moreover, Miami-Dade County possesses the necessary infrastructure, local resources, and the cultural diversity that is necessary for the FTAA Secretariat's permanent site. Miami also is a multicultural, bilingual city that is de facto financial capital of Latin America today. In sum, Miami is the logical and most attractive location to permanently hold the FTAA talks. In a broader sense, the home of the FTAA should be an American city. Since the end of World War II, the United States has been the leading proponent of trade liberalization throughout the world. Today our leadership on free trade is under close scrutiny, with many of our allies openly questioning our continuing commitment to expanding world trade. Let us send a strong signal today that America will continue its leadership position on this issue, especially to our neighbors in this hemisphere, by having a unanimous vote to locate the FTAA Secretariat in Miami. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Crane) and the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Archer) and all of my Florida colleagues for bringing this important bill to the floor today. I especially thank Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris, whose tireless work on this legislation was a major reason for its consideration today. I am confident that under Secretary Harris's leadership, Miami will one day be known as the Brussels of the West. Mr. Speaker, I ask for a yea vote on this bill. It is important to Dade County and Miami, it is important to the State of Florida, and as my good friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) pointed out, it is good for America.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I think we need to focus on what we are talking about right now. We have heard a lot of good speeches, most of which we can all agree on, and that is the need for treatment, the need for rehabilitation, the need to do these sorts of things in the community. That is not what this amendment is about. This amendment is a straight cut. My friend from Wisconsin spoke about the problem not being taken care of in our back yard. We are talking about what is going on in the streets in front of the homes of thousands of Americans, millions of Americans, where these drug deals are going down. The supply needs to be cut. We need to go with both the supply side and the demand side. And now we have ourselves in a situation where a country is in trouble, the country is reaching out to the United States, Colombia is the oldest democracy, I think, in South America; and they are reaching out to the United States for assistance. They are going to accept our training; they are going to accept our resources and our assets; and this is very important. We go over and we bomb these other countries, Libya and all these places, because they are making weapons of mass destruction that might some day hurt Americans; they may some day be used on our friends. At the same time, we are turning our heads and our backs on what is really going on, and that is this poison that is being created in Colombia and other countries in our hemisphere which is coming in and poisoning our kids and destroying their future.

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

Mr. SHAW. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would say that I did not say that we agreed for the need for more. We agree that the arguments that have been made is that we do need to concentrate in this area. That is very important. And perhaps when we get to the regular type of appropriation bills, this would come about. But what we have right now is an emergency in Colombia that we need to address. This qualifies for an emergency in every way possible. And I can tell the gentleman, this particular bill came in with an open rule that opens it up to all of the areas that are before the House today, and I think that the minority was certainly handled very fairly in this regard. But now, let us get serious on the war against drugs in this country. Let us get serious. And this is a wonderful first step. Let us not show a diminution of our resolve by starting to cut in with all these amendments that are going to be put before the House this afternoon and tonight. Let us not fall into that trap. Let us examine each one exactly the way they are. If it is a cutting amendment, that cuts down on our war against drugs, let us just call it that. It is not moving this money someplace else. Whether my colleagues like the rule or they do not like the rule, the question is right before us very squarely, and that is are we going to cut the aid that we desperately need in order to continue the war against drugs as an ally of the Colombian government? It is as simple as that. Vote down this amendment.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 5, legislation to repeal the earnings penalty for hard-working seniors age 65 and over. Madam Speaker, I am especially pleased that the Senate acted quickly and unanimously in support of this important legislation. The technical changes made in the Senate improve on the legislation passed unanimously by this House, and I urge all Members to once again support this excellent bill. Due to this quick work, seniors will soon receive all the benefits that they are owed, even if they continue to work after reaching the age of 65. That is their choice. As the name of our legislation suggests, they deserve the freedom to choose to work without losing Social Security benefits. It is worth noting that many seniors now affected by the earnings limit will receive back payments from months this year that they have lost their Social Security benefits. That will be a welcome relief for many, including some who have lost Social Security benefits for years due to this unfair penalty. Seniors can save this money for their future, use it to help with their grandchildren's college education, or buy prescription drugs. Again, it is their money and it should be their choice. Madam Speaker, ending the earnings penalty is the right thing to do. It is also an affordable thing to do, as the Social Security Administration's independent actuaries have told us. They agree this legislation will not affect the soundness of the Social Security program and its trust funds. We still must address Social Security's long-term financial imbalance, but we were very careful to ensure this legislation does not make that task any more difficult than it already is. I would like to congratulate the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), our colleague, and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) who first introduced this legislation at the beginning of this Congress. I also congratulate the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Archer) for his years of tireless work in relaxing and now repealing the earnings penalty. He is a personal testament to what hard-working seniors can do. In large part, passing this legislation is a tribute to his tireless devotion to helping our Nation's taxpayers, including the seniors who have spent decades working to support their families, their businesses, and this great country. Madam Speaker, I urge all Members to support this outstanding legislation. Our hard-working seniors deserve no less. I would also like to pay tribute to the minority side and thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) for making this really a landmark bipartisan bill and one that every Member of the House can be very proud to support. Mr. Speaker, since there will be no House-Senate conference, and the Senate manager's amendment to H.R. 5 proceeded without a full committee report being filed by the Finance Committee, I believe a brief explanation is in order of the differences between the legislation before us today and the version of H.R. 5 that was approved by the House on March 1, 2000. First, some background is needed. Under current law there are two separate senior earnings limits: a stricter limit that affects those who start drawing Social Security benefits before reaching the full retirement age (which is currently age 65) and a more lenient limit affecting seniors who have reached the full retirement age. After reaching age 70, seniors are no longer affected by an earnings limit. The stricter earnings limit is $10,080 this year, with a 50% benefit offset for earnings above the limit. The more lenient limit is $17,000, with a 33% benefit offset for earnings above the limit. H.R. 5 repeals the earnings limit for seniors who reach the full retirement age. The legislation before the House today is slightly modified from the version that passed unanimously on March 1 with respect to the earnings limit for the first months of the calendar year during which a senior reaches the full retirement age. For seniors turning 65 in 2000, the issue is what earnings limit will apply for months prior to their 65th birthday (that is, while they are still 64)? Under the legislation previously approved by the House, the more lenient limit would apply for such months for seniors who turn 65 in 2000; for seniors who reach the full retirement age in future years, the stricter limit would apply during those months. Under the legislation we are considering today, the more lenient limit would apply for such months in all years. I am pleased that the House is supporting this change today, which has the effect of slightly broadening the relief from the earnings penalty afforded by the version of H.R. 5 the House has already passed. It is worth noting that this change will not affect Social Security's long-run financial soundness, just as the underlying H.R. 5 would not affect program solvency. This change is certainly in keeping with the spirit of H.R. 5, which is designed to help seniors who want or have to work to better support themselves and their families. These hardworking seniors deserve to keep the benefits they have paid for, as this legislation provides. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAW. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery), an esteemed member of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. McCRERY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SHAW. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAW. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, when I was in my district this last weekend, an older lady was working where we were eating, and she was waiting on tables. I had helped her some years ago with a matter concerning her son, who is very badly retarded on an SSI matter. I mentioned it to her, and I asked her her age. Her age is a little above 65 but below 70. She is working waiting on tables, very hard work for someone that age, on her feet all day long, never complains. And yet we are taxing her at such an unconscionable rate. I told her that we were going to be passing this and that she would not only no longer be penalized but that she was going to receive back the penalties that she has incurred from the first of this year. I do not know whether she really believed me or not, but I am going to be very pleased to go home and tell her that indeed we did. And then I will go home again and tell her indeed that the President joined with this Congress and signed this great piece of legislation. This is a first step, only a first step, towards Social Security reform, but it is one that is purely one of fairness. It is so unfair for us to have continued to penalize older workers just simply because they were between the age of 65 and 70, saying that they could not keep their entire benefit. So many of them had to work. Whether they were waiting on tables, whether they were working in construction, no matter what they were doing, these wonderful people were working, many because they just wanted to work and many because, as the case of Mary, she had to work. This is very important that we stay together on this legislation. And I also want to compliment the other body. That is something we do not hear very often in this House is compliments for the other body, but they kept this legislation clean. The President asked for it to be clean. We asked for it to be clean, and they obliged us and they passed a clean bill. So I think this is really a landmark day for this House. We are coming together in complete cooperation with the Democrats in the White House and with the Republicans controlling the legislative branch. It is a wonderful day, and I would urge all Members to vote yes and make this again a unanimous statement by this House of Representatives showing our commitment to American seniors. Again, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), the ranking member on the Democratic side, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). Of course, again, I want to compliment the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), who has steadfastly stood for elimination of the earnings penalty for many, many years now, as he demonstrated on the House floor earlier. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SHAW. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), a respected member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. SHAW. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I think the old adage comes to mind of never ask a question that you do not know the answer to. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. SHAW. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. SHAW. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), a respected member of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. WELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SHAW. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAW. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), a respected member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. SHAW. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the chairman of the Committee on International Relations. (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SHAW. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order at any time today to take from the Speaker's table H.R. 5, with a Senate amendment thereto, and to consider in the House a motion offered by the Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, or his designee, that the House concur in the Senate amendment, that the Senate amendment and the motion be considered as read; that the motion be debatable for 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means, or their designees; and that the previous question be considered as ordered on the motion to final adoption without intervening motion.

Mr. SHAW. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the unanimous consent request just agreed to, I call up the bill (H.R. 5) to amend title II of the Social Security Act to eliminate the earnings test for individuals who have attained retirement age.

Mr. SHAW. Madam Speaker, I offer a motion.

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

Mr. SHAW. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means and one of the original sponsors of H.R. 5.

Mr. SHAW. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time remains on either side?

Mr. SHAW. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 63, I was on the floor and voted ``yes''. The electronic machine did not record that I had voted.