E. Shaw

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding this time to me. I think everyone on the Committee on Appropriations knows that social security comes under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means, and I have been sitting here listening to Member after Member coming down and talking about how the appropriation process is not extending the life of social security for even one day. Mr. Speaker, this committee has no jurisdiction with regard to social security. If we do not solve the problem of social security, it will become a problem in about 2014, because we will be looking for appropriations to put money into the social security trust fund to pay off the Treasury bills that are in the trust fund to keep the benefits flowing. That is my greatest concern, and I think this should be America's greatest nightmare at this particular time. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the appropriations process. We have to leave this to another day. We have to work together to solve this problem. If we start putting cash into the social security trust fund now, through the appropriation process under the law governing the social security trust fund, that money just comes right out the other end and is converted into Treasury bills. It does not in any way affect the solvency of the social security trust fund and as far as what date is it going to have to go out and tap into the taxpayers to get some money to take care of its obligations and the benefits. I even saw a member of the Committee on Ways and Means on the minority side get up and start talking about how this does not extend the life of social security. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Appropriations does not have jurisdiction over social security.

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

Mr. SHAW. If the gentleman would let me explain to him, and if he was listening, he would know that I said the buck stops at the Committee on Ways and Means, not the Committee on Appropriations. It is a Committee on Ways and Means responsibility to do this. We need to do it with a plan that is going to save social security for all times.

Mr. SHAW. Reclaiming my time, I would like to ask the gentleman two questions. One, exactly what does the gentleman expect the Committee on Appropriations to do to extend the life of social security in a bill this year?

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Coble) for yielding me this time. I want to compliment the gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Coble) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), the ranking Democrat member, for the swift action that they have taken in bringing this matter and attaching it to this bill and bringing it to the floor. For those of my colleagues who have not been to Miami Beach lately, there is a tremendous renaissance going on. The history of that area dates back to the early days of the 1920s when art deco was just getting started. The architecture that has evolved over the years in the 1920s, 1930s, and even into the 1940s is something really to behold and is unique in this country. Part of that architecture is the wonderful names and the magical names that are attached to so many of the hotels in that area. Now we are seeing that the great renaissance is going on, that Miami Beach is turning back to its past and bringing out the best of the past and bringing it forward, which has become a tremendous tourist attraction. The gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) represents the beautiful part of South Beach, which has become so famous. I wish my district went down quite that far, but I stop right at Lincoln Road. I was born and raised right there on Miami Beach. I can remember as a child the wonderful buildings that were down there, the lights that one would go see. When someone would come to town, one would drive them down into that area and show off Miami Beach. All of this is back. The magic of that great city is back. Nancy Liebman, who the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) mentioned in her statement, has been very active in bringing this matter back to our attention. She personally showed me and my wife Emily around Miami Beach. We were looking for the old theaters where we used to go on dates when we were both in high school together. It has really been quite good to see a city come back and bring back such a wonderful part of its past. Due to an unexpected circumstance, unintended circumstance in the 1996 law, many of these hotels were robbed of their identity and were forced and were being made to change their name. This reverses an error that was made, and I want to compliment all of the members of the Committee on the Judiciary, and particularly the chairman and the ranking member, for bringing this back to our attention so we can correct this situation.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me and congratulate the gentleman for his good work in seeing that this was reintroduced and brought to the House floor, an extremely important piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, today I welcome the chance to speak in support of this excellent bill. Simply put, this bill is about work. Its aim is to help individuals with disability achieve their goals of working and supporting themselves and their family. Through Subcommittee on Social Security hearings over the past 4 years, we have been told over and over again that people with disabilities do want to work. That has always been the case. What has changed is the fact that advances in medicine, technology, and the field of rehabilitation have given many individuals with disabilities a real chance to work. The next step is to redesign our programs to encourage, rather than discourage, their efforts. With H.R. 1180 we are helping disabled individuals take advantage of these advances in science and medicine both by allowing them to obtain needed rehabilitation and support services and by removing barriers that have prevented them from becoming self-sufficient. Topping the list of barriers is fear of losing health coverage, the cash benefits. Another disincentive is that beneficiaries currently have limited choices in selecting rehabilitation services and the providers of these services. To address these concerns we would allow the Social Security Administration to begin offering new tickets that disabled Social Security supplemental security income beneficiaries could use to purchase services to help them enter the work force. Disabled individuals in every State will be able to meet with service providers of their choice to develop a personalized employment plan. The Government will pay for services needed to help them work, rewarding the results by paying the service provider part of the benefit savings when disabled individuals leave the rolls. I would just like to take this one-half minute to ask really the other side and the White House to really bring the spirit of cooperation together. We have reached out to the Democrat side on many occasions in order to try to bring the spirit of the ticket of work to Social Security. Social Security should not be a partisan issue. There are Democrats and Republicans, millions across this country, who are dependent upon and will be dependent upon the Social Security Administration to keep them out of poverty, and it is time that this Congress and the White House stops the politicking and the wall of silence that we are receiving from the other side end and that we work together to do great things like we are doing today.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, it has been now 10 months since the White House Conference on Social Security. During that conference we pulled together, the President pulled together, much to his credit, leadership from both sides of the aisle, the leadership in both parties. The chairman and the ranking member on the Committee on Ways and Means came together. I was there as a chairman of the Subcommittee on Social Security, and we promised to work together in order to save Social Security. The President at that point made a commitment to us that he wanted to take the lead and that he would be sending us legislation. Mr. Speaker, today that commitment is just as empty as H.R. 1, which was reserved by the Speaker of this House to place the President's Social Security bill, the Social Security reform bill, in place in order to save Social Security for this country. We have been reaching out in a bipartisan way to the Democrat side in order to do that. Mr. Speaker, it is time now for the President to come forward and give the leadership that this country needs to save Social Security.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding this time to me. Mr. Speaker, when the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) was on the floor talking about wishing that the pay-fors were in the bill, I would like to point out that both he and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) have signed a discharge petition asking that this bill in its form that it is going to be made in order under this rule be brought directly to the floor. In that bill, there were no pay-fors. If they would attempt to put a paid-for in as an amendment, it would be nongermane. So they have already asked by way of a discharge petition that this bill be brought to the floor without any pay-fors. Now, regarding the pay-fors that were requested in the Committee on Rules, one of those, and the largest one of which, has never had a hearing before the Committee on Ways and Means. It is a tax increase. As long as I have been in this Congress, both under Democrat control and under Republican control, I can never remember a single time when this Congress was so irresponsible as to bringing a tax increase directly to the floor without even so much as a hearing before the Committee on Ways and Means. That would be irresponsible on our side, and it would be equally irresponsible on the Democrats' side.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, as I understand, all time has expired on the minority side?

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman from California knows the rules of the House.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would remind the gentleman from Massachusetts who is just now leaving the floor that H.R. 7 was reserved by the Speaker for the President to submit a social security bill to this House. H.R. 1, H.R. 1 is still vacant. I would also remind the gentleman, and I think that he is well-versed in the Archer-Shaw plan, it does save social security for 75 years and beyond. I would hope to tell the gentleman that we will be sure they are marking this bill up, and it is certainly within the limitations. If we do nothing on social security over the next 75 years, we are looking at a $20 trillion deficit. We desperately need the lead from the White House that we have not received. We need to get the bipartisan support from the minority side, which we have not received. We need to get a bill started. I can assure the gentleman that that is exactly what is going to happen. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis)

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Chair how much time is remaining on each side.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, perhaps the gentleman from New York would like to yield time, and I reserve the balance of my time. Announcement By The Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, that is not my question.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins), a respected member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. SHAW. For a short answer, I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the gentleman's trespassing on my time would not count against the time that I have. I would say to the gentleman, who is the ranking member on the committee that I chair, that he does not have a plan that would save Social Security for all time. The President's plan does not save Social Security for all time. We have reached out across the aisle in order to try to formulate such a plan; but so far, we have not received that cooperation. The Archer-Shaw plan does save Social Security for all time, and it has been scored by the Social Security Administration for doing that. It does it by preserving existing benefits without cutting one single benefit and preserving all of the COLA's. It does not raise the payroll taxes. As a matter of fact, it saves the $20 trillion deficit that we would be leaving our kids over the next 75 years. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller). (Mr. WELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lewis), a member of the committee.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time, and I say to my friend from New York (Mr. Rangel), who has asked several times why we do not move to override the veto, that he knows as well as I do the very simple fact is that we do not have enough Democrats to go in with the Republicans to raise the two-thirds majority necessary to give the American people the relief from the marriage tax penalty, relief from the death tax, and relief from so many of the other taxes that we have. I think, too, that the Members on the other side are well aware of the fact that we have got locked away, as the gentleman from Kentucky just said, locked away sufficient dollars from the Social Security surplus in order to more than repair Social Security, more than take care of the problems that we are facing in Medicare. Indeed, it would be irresponsible to be spending that money, and that is why we passed the lockbox legislation, and that is why we have this in our budget, that was passed by the House, in order to prevent this type of spending. But putting all this aside, and Members can say anything on this floor and it goes out like it is the truth, but the facts and the figures are there and they are there for all of us to see. But what I want to see is what is going to happen now next week as the spending bills, the appropriation bills, come to the floor. Are my friends on the other side of the aisle going to vote against them because we do not spend enough? I suggest that they will. Will the President veto them because we do not spend enough? I suggest that he will. And I wonder, when he does that, and as they vote and explain their votes on the other side of the aisle, how they will explain how they are saving this money for Social Security and saving Medicare. 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 ask the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), does he have a plan to save Social Security, and does it save Social Security for 75 years? Is he prepared to vote for a plan that would save Social Security?

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Shaw-Calvert- Gallegly amendment to H.R. 417, the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 1999. The Shaw-Calvert-Gallegly amendment is a common sense solution to reforming our current campaign finance laws. Our amendment would simply require candidates running for Congress to raise and accept no less than 50 percent of the total contributions from within the State they represent. Our amendment is simple and fair. It does not tilt the playing field in favor or Republicans or Democrats. If affects rich and poor districts equally. Our amendment does, however, lessen the huge advantage Washington insiders have over challengers who do not have access to the out-of-state fundraising circuit. In the past, some congressional candidates have raised as much as 95 percent of their campaign funds from out-of-State donors. This amendment would require that candidates should be financially supported at least in part by the citizens they wish to represent. Mr. Chairman, Members should spend more time with the people that really count, namely the voters in our districts. We should show our constituents that we represent Main Street, not K Street. If you believe we should bring the focus of fundraising back to the people we represent, then I urge you vote in favor of the Shaw-Calvert-Gallegly amendment.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis). The only inequity that the people from New York will suffer would be, if this amendment passes, when they move down to Florida, then they will see what the inequity is. The mathematics is very clear. I hope my colleagues will listen to the gentleman from Florida. This is just a question of fairness, of basic fairness, and it is a question I think that all of us should ask for ourselves. Are the veterans who live in the Sunbelt entitled to less than those who stayed in the more populated areas that have not grown?

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

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to my dear friend Amory Underhill who passed away last night at the age of 89 in DeLand, Florida. Amory was highly respected and honored for his lifetime accomplishments and service. Amory served as lieutenant commander in the United States Navy. After his military service, Amory came to Washington, D.C. where he became special attorney at the United States Department of Justice. Amory also served as first assistant in the antitrust division and Deputy Attorney General's office and was appointed as assistant Attorney General by President Truman. Amory was proud to have attended every presidential inaugural from President Roosevelt through President Clinton and privileged to have a personal relationship with each one of these presidents. Throughout all of Amory's achievements, he remained a dedicated Floridian through his service and generosity to his native State. Amory served as trustee emeritus of my alma mater, Stetson University in DeLand, Florida, and Saint Leo College in Saint Leo, Florida. He served as chairman emeritus of the Board of Overseers of Stetson University College of Law in St. Petersburg, Florida, and as chairman and president of the Bert Fish Foundation in DeLand, Florida. Amory was actively involved in the Florida House here in Washington, D.C., serving as treasurer and as a member of the founding board with the late Governor Lawton Chiles and his wife, Rhea. From the time he first came to Washington, through the rest of his life, he was a fixture at every Florida State society function, acting as friend and mentor to generations of Floridians in Washington, including the Florida Congressional Delegation. Mr. Speaker, I am honored and grateful to have had the opportunity to have known Amory Underhill. Amory was a highly respected man in Florida. While I am saddened by his passage, his extensive contributions to Florida, this Nation, and the fond memories that I have will live on forever.