E. Shaw

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding me this time. In looking at the figures that the previous speaker had up, holding 25 percent of the surplus out to save Social Security, 25 percent for Medicare, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Social Security, that interests me greatly because I want to know where the Democrat plan is. I want to know where that 25 percent figure came from. I think that could be very, very interesting. But there is another thing that I want to know for those who have spoken before and those to come later. What is it that you do not like about eliminating the limitation on the deduction for the interest on student loans? What is it that you do not like about eliminating and phasing out the death tax where you have to see the undertaker and the Internal Revenue Service on the same day? What is it you do not like about an across-the-board tax deduction for all American taxpayers? What is it you do not like about reducing the cap on capital gains? What is it about the marriage penalty that you like that you want to hold on to? Why not eliminate it? Why not join with the Republicans? What is it you do not like about deducting health insurance costs? What is it you do not like about increasing the amount you can put into educational savings accounts? Last of all, what is it you do not like about getting a deduction for taking care of your elderly parents? This bill has been drafted very, very carefully. This bill is a wonderful bill. This bill just uses a small portion of the surplus and leaves plenty, believe me, plenty. By the passage of the Archer-Shaw Social Security plan, Members will see that we are going to save Social Security and they will also see that we are going to get many Democrats that are going to join with us. This is the plan that we have and we are going to do it. We are also going to reduce the accumulated debt that is going to pester our descendants so much unless we do something about it. Let us get together. Let us in a bipartisan way do these things that the American people want us to do. Let us pass this rule and pass this very fair and very good tax plan.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I want to compliment him and those on the staff and members of the Committee on Ways and Means and the other committees for crafting as near a perfect tax bill as I have seen in the years I have been in Congress. Mr. Speaker, the minority leader just spoke of targeted tax cuts for people who really need it. Let us talk for just a moment about who really needs the tax cuts in this country. Let us see who we should exclude from that category. Americans who care for their elderly family members at home, with an additional exemption in this bill of $2,750. What is wrong with that? We allow parents to save up to $2,000, rather than only $500, in Education Savings Accounts. What is wrong with that? We eliminate the 25 percent contribution limit on pre-tax salary to 401(k)s. Saving for one's retirement, what do you have against that? Reducing the capital gains rate by a small percentage, but saving it so that Americans can invest for their future, why are you against that? Allowing Americans who purchase their own health insurance to deduct 100 percent of the premium, who can be against that? Cutting the marriage penalty. We now penalize people when they get married where you have got two earners in the family. What in the world can somebody be against in cutting that back, cutting that penalty back? Permitting private colleges and universities to establish prepaid tuition programs for parents of prospective students. Currently only public universities are allowed to do this. We extend that to private universities. Who could be against that? Reducing the individual income tax rates for all American taxpayers. That is something we should all be for. Allowing Americans who purchase long-term care insurance, we allow them to deduct the full amount of their premiums from their taxes. That is something we should encourage, and we encourage it by allowing the deduction. Phasing out the death tax. The death tax is the biggest destroyer of American farms and American businesses in this country today. It is an evil tax that should be eliminated, and this bill would phase it out over a period of time. Student loans. Right now when you get a student loan, you can only deduct the interest that you pay for 5 years. After that it is not deductible. I can tell you from the young people who work in my office that I have talked to, this is a very important part of their income, and they should be able to at least deduct it. This is important. Mr. Speaker, during this debate we have heard a lot about Social Security. Interestingly enough, and I have kept score, I do not believe that one person who stood up here and said that we are going to do nothing about Social Security has any inkling how to solve the problem, and, if they do, they have not come out and put that down. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) and I and the Committee on Ways and Means and many of us are working together and reaching out to Democrats in order to be able to do precisely that. We have come up with a plan that does precisely that, and it saves Social Security for all time. Very shortly, that plan will be going to some type of a markup, and I look forward to that. We will continue to reach out across the aisle to the Democrats. But I can tell you right now, and I think the American people should hold all of us to this standard: Do not talk about saving Social Security on the floor of this House unless you are ready to step forward to do it. Sitting back and doing nothing will do nothing to save social security for our seniors and for our kids and for our grandkids. It is time that we stop this rhetoric, and we go forward and work together in a powerful way to save social security. The Republicans now are reaching out to the Democrats. Join with us. Let us do this before the end of the year, and before this Congress goes out for our November-December break. Let us come back and work together and save social security.

Mr. SHAW. The chairman did not say that.

Mr. SHAW. That is not true what the gentleman is saying. MR. LEVIN. It is.

Mr. SHAW. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. In looking at what is before us and the guidelines in which the tax bill that is presently going to conference is drawn, and looking at that in comparison with the motion to instruct, these tax bills, both the House and the Senate, were very carefully drawn and crafted within the budget limitations. I think it is very important for this House to realize that the budget that passed this House and the Senate and, under which this tax bill is tailored, pays down the debt more than the President's budget. We have heard a lot of rhetoric this afternoon regarding Social Security. There is a bill, that will be filed shortly, that the people on both sides of the aisle are fully versed in, that is the Archer-Shaw bill that could save Social Security for all time. There is ample money to save Social Security and save Medicare and pay down the debt and give the taxpayers some relief. The previous speaker, I know he did not mean to be flip, but he talked about funny money. This is not funny money. This is the taxpayers' hard-earned dollars, and I think when my colleagues find that we are moving forward, that we have created a surplus, I think it is important that we not only pay down the debt, which I agreed with, the accumulated debt must be reduced; But I think it is also important that we let the taxpayer keep some of their own money. This is hard-earned dollars. The taxpayers are paying far too much money today, and when we put all the taxes together that the taxpayers pay, let us reject this motion to instruct, and let us let the conferees go about their task of conferencing this most important bill and give the taxpayers some relief that they so richly deserve.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise today in support of H.R. 2605, the Energy and Water Development appropriations bill for the fiscal year 2000. Mr. Chairman, this bill plays a critical role in public works projects throughout my coastal district. I am especially grateful to the gentleman from California and the gentleman from Indiana for their efforts in the area of shore protection. Since the Clinton-Gore administration decided several years ago to drastically cut shore protection from their annual budget, the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development has struggled each year to come up with the additional millions of dollars to meet critical beach erosion needs all across our country. This fact, coupled with the budget cap realities, has coastal communities across the country finding themselves facing severe beach erosion with little Federal relief in sight. Funding issues aside, I am also concerned over the slow rate of progress being made to renourish beaches in Broward County and Miami- Dade County, Florida, where arcane and archaic Army Corps policies have slowed down beach renourishment projects. I am hopeful that I can work with the subcommittee over the next few weeks to find innovative solutions to overcome these obstacles. I also would be remiss if I did not express my appreciation to this committee as well as the Subcommittee on Interior and also to the chairman of the full committee the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) for their sensitivity to our needs of the environment in the Everglades. The attention that this Congress has given to our environmental needs in Florida has really been most gratifying. I want to express appreciation for the entire Florida delegation on this matter. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this bill.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to disapproving normal trade relations status for the People's Republic of China. Mr. Speaker, this Nation has had some serious issues with China: China's abysmal human rights record, its alleged attempts to influence the White House by way of illegal campaign contributions, its theft of our military secrets. These are legitimate points of concern between our nations. But supporters of this resolution are wrong to state that these issues are connected or can be somehow corrected by revoking normal trade relations with China. Let me repeat what has been said many times before. Engaging China through trade does not constitute an endorsement of China's actions or policies. As Secretary of State Madeleine Albright correctly stated in a letter to Congress, ``Revoking normal trade relations would do nothing to encourage the forces of change in China. It would not free a single prisoner, open a single church, or expose a single Chinese citizen to a new idea. It would seriously disadvantage America's growing economic interest in China, rupture the overall United States- Sino relationship, and place at risk efforts to bring China into the rules-based international community.'' I would hasten to add that revoking normal trade relations with China would also jeopardize thousands of American jobs and would dramatically drive up prices for American consumers. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this resolution.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, during the debate on the tax cut bill, a common refrain was echoed last night, and we are seeing it again today, and that is saying that we will be cutting taxes somehow and it will hurt Social Security and Medicare. Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleagues, it is simply not true. Do not believe this scare tactic. The House, including 95 percent of the Democrats, have already overwhelmingly approved H.R. 1259, which is the Social Security lockbox. This bill locks away $1.9 trillion in Social Security surpluses over the next decade. Those surpluses are to be used and can only be used solely to pay down the debt or to save Social Security and Medicare. Fortunately, as established by the Social Security guarantee plan, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) and I have crafted the Social Security surpluses, and we have proved that the Social Security surpluses are more than enough to save Social Security, leaving hundreds of billions of dollars to save Medicare and to pay down the debt. I cannot help but be struck by the irony that those claiming Social Security surpluses are not enough to save Social Security do not even have their own plan to save Social Security. Where is the plan? Where is the plan to save Social Security for all time? There is the Archer- Shaw plan. Where is the Democrat plan? How much does it cost? Tax cut opponents have no answers to this, and I find the silence in this hall today deafening. Where is the plan? Is it any surprise that we are now trying to scare our seniors? Well, I am going to say, this time, it is not going to work. In fact, this bill that we have before us today augments efforts to save Social Security and Medicare through needed pension reforms, savings and investment incentives, and health care tax relief, enhanced savings and stronger employer pensions, which will ensure the retirement security so that it will remain stable to support the baby boomers as they approach retirement. Plus, we have now added a provision which says, if we do not pay down the debt, then we do not cut the taxes for that year. I think Mr. Greenspan, just this morning, made reference to that in his testimony in a very positive manner. How much stronger of a commitment to paying down debt can we get. The tax cut is financed 100 percent with non-Social Security surpluses. Let me repeat that, 100 percent of non-Social Security surpluses, which represents the overpayment of taxes by the American family. We should refund them and get on with the hard work of saving Social Security and Medicare. Fortunately, for that purpose, we can use the Social Security surpluses already saved in the lockbox which are more than enough to save Social Security and Medicare. We can pay down the debt, cut taxes and save Social Security and Medicare, and this tax bill proves it.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I want to speak on this amendment as it ties into the previous amendment with regard to ethics. So often the only quality time that a child spends today with both parents working, with the TV blaring at home, is the time spent with teachers, with the principals of the schools, those people who set the agenda in life. I think it is vitally important that we do teach values and that these things become part of the curriculum and that the teachers are properly instructed in ways of such teaching. It is not just automatic, the teaching of ethics and values in today's world. I think when we see that the children and the teachers that we have put so much responsibility in, I think it is only right that they become part of the overall scheme of building not only the education but also the character of the young people today.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Sanford amendment that would reduce the funding for one portion of his bill, the Dante Fascell North-South Center. The Dante Fascell North-South Center is an independent policy research and educational center strategically located in Miami, which is the gateway to Latin America and the gateway to the Caribbean. The center is dedicated to economic and integration efforts, economic stabilization and growth, and furthering democracy and managing immigration. The center is a key player in the anticipated free trade area of the Americas. United States exports to Latin America climbed from $31 billion in 1986 to over $130 billion in 1997, comprising 20 percent of United States global exports. The Commerce Department estimates that exports to Latin America will surpass exports to Europe in 2000 and surpass exports to Europe and Japan combined by 2010. Clearly, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman perhaps has merit to his amendment. However, his net is far too wide and it should be defeated. I would urge defeat of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Sanford amendment, which would reduce funding to the Dante Fascell North-South Center. The Dante Fascell North-South Center is an independent policy research and educational center, strategically located in Miami, the gateway to Latin America and the Caribbean. The center is dedicated to economic integration efforts, economic stabilization and growth, furthering democracy, and managing immigration. The center is a key player in the anticipated Free Trade Area of the Americas. U.S. exports to Latin America climbed from $31 billion in 1986 to over $130 billion in 1997, comprising 20 percent of U.S. global exports. The Commerce Department estimates that exports to Latin America will surpass exports to Europe in 2000, and surpass exports to Europe and Japan combined in 2010. Clearly, trade and investment relations with Latin American countries are a vital interest to the United States. Global financial volatility has highlighted the fact that stability and growth abroad has a direct impact on the U.S. economy. An Asia-type meltdown in Latin America would result not just in further economic crises, but would also manifest itself by increased drug trafficking, illegal immigration, civil unrest, and challenges to democratic rule. The North-South Center plays a crucial role in finding solutions for stability and prosperity in the region. The North-South Center is an extraordinarily active force in education and discussion of U.S.-Latin American issues such as effects of the Castro regime, drug trafficking from Colombia, social causes of migration, food safety, and the role of the military in democratic society. The North-South Center is fueled by an internationally recognized staff which is dedicated to engaging diverse groups in inter-American issues from the perspective of the public good. At the beginning of this century, the focal point of United States foreign policy was in Europe. During the mid-1900's, the United States focus shifted toward Asia as a source of commerce and trade. In the 21st century, the United States may very well be looking to Latin America as the center of economic cooperation and growth. We must be prepared for this shift, and we need the North-South Center to continue paving our way. The Dante Fascell North-South Center's proven track record in facilitating international dialog among governments, nongovernmental organizations, and business interests makes it a vital asset for the United States in this new era of inter-American relations. Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to recognize the importance of the Dante Fascell North-South Center and oppose the Sanford amendment.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, the plane of the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) has been delayed because of weather. She chairs the Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means. When I chaired that committee, we did a great deal of work as part of the welfare reform bill, the child support provision. In that, we put a provision into the law regarding passports. This goes directly towards what the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) has suggested in amendment number 17. I would ask that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) work with the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) and Members of the Committee on Ways and Means in order that we not have an inconsistency in the law with regard to the issuance of passports on past-due child support payments. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. This is a very important bill. For too long Africa has been treated as still colonies of many of our European allies. For too long their resources have been exploited by some Asians who have very little regard for the natural resources, including the magnificent rain forests and the creatures that are now endangered that walk this earth in Africa. With the investment, American investment, we will be exporting one of our most valuable commodities, democracy, human rights, our appreciation for the environment. This is what will be exported into Africa, and with the importation in Africa and reaching out to Africa, their economies will grow; and with their economies, the democracies will also be more firmly put in place and their appreciation for their free-market system that has served this country so well. These are the values that I believe we will bring to Africa, and African exports and the rich resources of Africa will be of great benefit to our country. I traveled to Gabon with the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means just last year and was very much impressed with the progress that Gabon has made, President Bongo, with his reelection. We had observers on the scene during the reelection. Members of their Parliament are visiting the United States at this time and I believe are with us this morning. So I would urge a yes vote on this most important piece of legislation. Let us not continue to turn our back on Africa.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation, entitled the Public School Construction Partnership Act, to help our public schools meet the need for school modernization, new classrooms and the repair of old and aging facilities. In the 22nd Congressional District of Florida, I represent three of the fifteen largest school districts in the country--the Miami-Dade County Public School District is the nation's fourth largest school district, the Broward County School District is the nation's fifth largest, and the Palm Beach County School District is the fifteenth largest. Broward County is also the third fastest growing school district in the nation. Public school children attend classes in 296 elementary, middle and senior high schools in Miami-Dade County, 178 in Broward County, and 137 in Palm Beach County. Many classes are held in temporary classrooms. Many of the buildings are in need of repairs. The student population in the state of Florida is expected to grow 25 percent faster than the overall population. This makes the need for new school construction critical. Public schools need new ways to raise revenue to meet the problems caused by growth and overcrowding. The financing needs faced by an urban school district may not be of the same nature or scope as those of a rural district. At the same time we need to reduce construction costs and promote school construction efficiencies to ensure that dollars are spent wisely and effectively. This bill is a meaningful step in those directions. Four different approaches to financing new public school construction and repairing older schools are provided for in this legislation. First, the bill would allow school districts to make use of public- private partnerships in issuing private activity bonds for the construction or improvement of public educational facilities. Private activity bonds can now be issued to finance 12 types of activities such as airports, docks and wharves, qualified residential rental projects, and qualified hazardous waste facilities. It makes sense to be able to issue them for the construction and rehabilitation of public schools. In order to qualify for the bonds, a private corporation would be required to participate in a public-private partnership with a public school district. Under the bill, a private corporation could build school facilities and lease them to the school district. At the end of the lease term the facilities would revert back to the school district of no additional consideration. Alternatively, a school district could sell their old facilities to such a corporation, which would then refurbish them, and lease the refurbished facilities back to the school district. The proceeds from the sale could then be used by the district to build new classrooms. This allows the school district to leverage investment in school facilities without having to borrow by issuing tax-exempt bonds. The bonds would be exempt from the annual state volume caps on private activity bonds, but would be subject to their own annual per- state caps equal to the greater of $10 per capita or $5 million. This would raise more than an additional $120 million for school construction in the state of Florida. The bill leaves to the states the manner in which the per-state amount is to be allocated. Second, the bill provides for a 4-year safe harbor for exemption from the arbitrage rules. To prevent state and local governments from issuing tax-exempt bonds and using the proceeds to invest in higher yielding investments to earn investment income (thereby earning arbitrage profits), arbitrage restrictions are placed on the use of tax exempt bonds. In the case of tax-exempt bonds use to finance school construction and renovation, the bond proceeds must be spent at certain rates on construction within 24 months of being issued. The bill would extend the 24-month period to 4 years for school bonds as long as the proceeds were spent at certain rates within this period. It is difficult for school districts to comply with the present 24-month period when funding different projects from a single issuance of bonds. The increase in the time period would give school districts greater flexibility in planning construction projects and more money with which to build and repair schools. Tax exempt bonds issued by small governments are not subject to the arbitrage restrictions as long as no more than $10 million of bonds are issued in any year. In order to provide relief to small and rural school districts undertaking school construction and rehabilitation activities, the third approach undertaken by the bill is to raise the exemption to $15 million as long as at least $10 million of the bonds were used for public school construction. Fourth, the bill would permit banks to invest in up to $25 million of tax exempt bonds issued by school districts for public school construction without disallowance of a deduction for interest expense. Currently, banks are allowed to purchase only $10 million without being subject to disallowance of interest expense. Banks, traditionally, have been an important purchaser of last resort of tax exempt bonds. Increasing the amount of bonds that can be purchased by banks without penalty will allow school districts to sell their bonds to banks, thereby avoiding having to incur the expense of accessing the capital markets. This legislation offers an innovative approach to help finance the building and rehabilitation of our public schools, which activity is so vital to improving our education system. The creation of the public/ private partnerships would speed up the construction of new public schools that are urgently needed. The bill gives our school districts the flexibility they need to tailor their financing needs to their individual situations. This legislation can help our public schools to construct and repair needed facilities to educate our children, and I urge my colleagues to join me in seeking its enactment.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2084, the FY 2000 Transportation Appropriations Bill. While this bill contains many worthy provisions, I was disappointed that no funding was included for Broward County's (FL) busing program. As my colleagues may recall, last year Congress appropriated $1 million for new buses in Broward County. Considering that Broward County is still rapidly expanding, and that current transit service is inadequate (especially in the western areas of the county), I am hopeful that some funding can be added in conference committee for this worthwhile program. Mr. Chairman, considering the numerous budgetary constraints Chairman Wolf is operating under, he did a commendable job in bringing this bill to the floor today, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would say to the gentleman from California, who I do not believe was here when his party was in the majority, that it was rare that a motion to recommit was offered to the minority side when the Republicans were in the minority. So I think this is a very Democratic process. The gentleman can come forward with his bill. Many of his Members have already argued in favor of his motion to recommit, so I think the process going forward is very good. I would also remind the gentleman that but for the grace of God and six Members, you would be in the majority today. Nothing is precluding the gentleman and Members from his side from coming forward with their own plan. As a matter of fact, I think we are also looking for one from the White House, and I think there is a certain amount of cooperation. So I am not slamming this side for it, but I think also when the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) and I have come forward with a plan before the Committee on Ways and Means and are working that plan and talking to the Members, briefing the Members, and the gentleman from California was at the briefing that we had the day we unveiled it, I think this is important progress. We are making progress. However, it is a slow process. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity today to express my support for H.R. 1259, the Social Security and Medicare Safe Deposit Act of 1999. Today Social Security protects 44 million Americans. Social Security's core features: risk-free, lifetime benefits, progressivity, inflation protection and family and disability benefits are particularly important to women and to our lower-income people. In fact, Social Security is the main and only source of income for about one in three seniors today. Thanks mostly to Social Security, poverty among seniors has dropped 69 percent since 1959, making seniors today the least likely group in America to be poor. Yet despite its success, Social Security will not be able to pay promised benefits in the future. The reasons are simple. We are living longer and retiring sooner and having fewer kids. By 2014 Social Security will spend more than it receives in taxes. That is right, by 2014. By 2034, the trust fund will be empty, and only about two-thirds of the benefits will be payable. In the past the answer has always been to cut benefits or raise payroll taxes, but today these traditional fixes are not acceptable. Social Security is the largest tax most workers pay today, and we must not increase that burden. We must avoid benefit cuts like COLA cuts and retirement age hikes that harm today's seniors or tomorrow's seniors. That means our only choice is to save and invest, to save Social Security as provided in the Social Security Guarantee Plan the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) and I have proposed. This plan converts Social Security surplus into personal retirement savings for every American worker to help save Social Security. At retirement, workers' savings guarantee full Social Security benefits and are paid without cuts or payroll tax hikes. The plan even creates new inheritable wealth for many workers who die before retirement after ensuring that full survivor benefits are paid. And the plan eliminates the Social Security earnings limit so seniors can work without further penalties. But most importantly the Social Security Guarantee Plan saves Social Security for all time. Full promised benefits are paid, and the Social Security trust funds never go broke. In fact, the Social Security Administration has said the guarantee plan eliminates Social Security's long-range deficit and permits payment of full benefits through 1973 and beyond, and that is a quote. In the long run there are budget surpluses and the first payroll tax cuts in the program's history. Passing H.R. 1259, the Social Security and Medicare Safe Deposit Act of 1999 will be a first critical step in this progress. This legislation, for the first time in history, locks away Social Security surpluses in a safe deposit box, only to be opened to save Social Security and Medicare. Today there are no rules to protect the Social Security surplus. In contrast, H.R. 1259 sets new rules to protect those surpluses. If a measure does not pay for itself, either the House Committee on Rules or a supermajority of 60 Senators will have to agree to use Social Security surplus to pay for it. So while the budget resolution made it out of order for the Congress to spend Social Security surpluses this year, this bill goes further to protect Social Security surpluses for as long as it takes to save Social Security and Medicare. Consider what a difference that will make. For 30 years Federal budgeteers have included Social Security surpluses in their reporting to cover up what was really going on in the rest of the Federal budget. This safety deposit box stops the government from hiding behind Social Security surpluses to claim that its budget is balanced. In the future, all official budget documents must include the Social Security surplus in determining the government's budgetary bottom line. That is a solid foundation for legislation that will finish the job and really save Social Security for 75 years and beyond. I encourage all Members to support this bill, and I must say this bill does not include the remedy to save Social Security for all time. It puts in place a discipline upon this House of Representatives, upon the Senate and upon the White House to live within our means without raiding the Social Security Trust Fund. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. I would answer the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), who is the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Social Security, that I look forward to working with him. We do need legislation that is actually drawn up so we can actually look at it. Our conceptual model has been out there for some time, and people are looking at it, and I know the gentleman from California has just recently reviewed this, reviewed the documents that we have supplied, and is becoming knowledgeable and becoming familiar with what it is that we are trying to do. I also understand that the President will be submitting some legislative language, and this is a positive step. So we do need to get together. This has to be a bipartisan solution, and this is what I think is so important in this whole process. The gentleman is right. This lockbox is not the solution, but this lockbox does make it more difficult for this Congress to go ahead and continue to raid the Social Security Trust Fund surplus, and that is a fact of life, and that is what this does, and this is why I am supporting this particular bill.

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

Mr. SHAW. Reclaiming my time, both processes are going forward, and this lockbox simply puts an impediment in front of the Congress to continue to raid the Social Security Trust Fund while we are trying to come together on a solution. I may be one of the few Members of this House on Capitol Hill that really believes we are going to produce something this year, but I do, I have confidence in the process, I have confidence that the President wants to cooperate, I have confidence that there are a sufficient number of Democrats and Republicans that want to get together and put together a good bill that will solve the situation, and I am confident that we will do it. But in the meantime, as we are going through the appropriation process, as we will be going through tax cuts and what not, I think that the decision has been made to hold this money aside, this surplus aside, and I think it is a positive step. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. HOUGHTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), 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 say to my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), I know Hillary Clinton, and he is not Hillary Clinton. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes 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 30 seconds to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns). (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means and a valued member of the Subcommittee on Social Security.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say, I compliment the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Social Security of the Committee on Ways and Means, and I take what he says as reaching out to Republicans and wanting to work together to solve this terrible problem that we have. Mr. Speaker, we talk about the year 2035. The real problem is going to start in 2014, when the fund starts to run out of money. That means that the FICA taxes will not be sufficient to take care of the benefits. That means that those baby-boomers that are getting into the retirement system at that time are going to require either a decrease in their benefits, which would be terrible, or an increase in the payroll taxes for the people that are already overtaxed, and particularly the people of low income. That would be terrible to do that. So let us not kid ourselves, we do not have until 2035. The problem starts at 2015, and the disaster happens at 2035. Just 2 weeks ago our ninth grandchild was born to Emily and to me, little Casey Carter, a beautiful little girl. And I cannot help but think, and all of us think as we look into our children's eyes, our grandchildren's eyes, just go out front and look into the eyes of the young people around this Capitol, we are handing them a hand grenade, pulling the pin, and say you hold it, it is your problem. We can solve it now, and we do need to solve it now. If we do not solve it now, it would be the biggest, biggest curse on this House and the Senate and the White House. We can work together. There is a way to do it. We have put down a plan. The President is going to be putting down a plan. I hope the Democrats will come out with a plan that they can support. We need to work together. We need to come together and solve this situation. We can do it now without in any way interfering with the benefits that our seniors rely upon and without increasing the taxes on our kids and our grandkids. But this may be the last Congress that can do this with as little pain as we can put into it. So let us work together, and I think this has been a very constructive, constructive session. I accept a lot of the criticism that has been given, and I hope that Members will accept a lot of the criticism that has come from this side. Together we can work together to solve the social security crisis in this country.