E. Shaw

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1833. While this bill contains many worthy provisions, there are a number of provisions contained in H.R. 1833 of particular importance to my constituents in South Florida. For example, the bill directs the following additional resources to Florida and Gulf Coast ports: $4.5 million for 6 vehicle and container inspection systems; $11.8 million for 5 mobile truck x-rays; $7.2 million for 8 1-MeV pallet x-rays; $0.25 million for portable contraband detectors; and $0.3 million for 25 contraband detection kits. The bill also authorizes a net increase of 40 inspectors at southeastern Florida seaports (Port of Miami, Port Everglades, and Port of Palm Beach) to process and screen cargo. In sum, this bill renews Congress' commitment to interdict drugs in Florida. For too long, Customs resources have been diverted to the southwestern border and Puerto Rico while drugs have poured into Florida. This bill begins to rectify that situation. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1833 is an excellent bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I commend Keith Lund for being designated as a ``Star of Life'' by the American Ambulance Association. Keith's selection as the ``Star of Life'' Award winner for Dade, Broward, Monroe and Palm Beach Counties of Florida is an appropriate honor for such a dedicated paramedic. Keith has worked with American Medical Response for eight years, rising from an emergency medical technician to a paramedic and supervising officer. Anyone who has been in an emergency situation can easily recognize the vital importance of a calm, direct manner and the ability to work as a team member. Keith Lund embodies these to near-perfection. He handles his daily work in the high-stress environment as a critical care paramedic with eagerness, diligence, and pride. I believe it is exceedingly difficult to separate professional life and personal life. This is an especially complicated task for a single parent. As a single father, Keith's dedication to his job is balanced with his dedication to his son. Keith's commitment to both should be honored and admired. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join with me in honoring the 150 emergency medical professionals being honored as ``Stars of Life'' during National EMS Week of 1999. I commend Keith Lund for his dedication to emergency care for the people of South Florida as a true ``Star of Life''.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. I represent a district in South Florida with over 90 miles of coastline, and 100 miles of Intracoastal Waterway, so water projects are very important to my constituents. I commend Chairmen Shuster, Boehlert, and all of the members of the Water Resources Subcommittee for their perseverance in getting this bill to the floor. One issue of much concern to my constituents is the continued participation of the federal government to renourish beaches. Despite the Administration's decision to abandon coastal communities across the country, for three years the Committee has continued to ensure adequate funding levels for desperately needed projects. When the Committee finally decided to adjust the cost share formula for new construction projects, I am grateful they provided for a phased-in approach over three years. This will give local sponsors the chance to prepare for a reduced federal share. I am optimistic that the change will provide the needed motivation to the Clinton Administration to send a realistic budget to the Congress next year, with sensible funding levels for shore protection. On a related topic, I am most grateful to the Committee for including a provision in H.R. 1480 that will allow Broward County, Florida to be reimbursed for the federal portion of their beach renourishment project in two phases. Although this language was not included in the Senate version, I hope the language will be included in the final conference report. Finally, the Committee is also to be commended for their willingness to assist the Florida congressional delegation on the Everglades restoration effort. Three provisions in the bill relating to land acquisition and the extension of critical projects authority will ensure the program moves forward unimpeded. Madam Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, all across America, in the small towns and great cities of this country, our heritage as a nation--the physical evidence of our past--is at risk. In virtually every corner of this land, homes in which grandparents and parents grew up, communities and neighborhoods that nurtured vibrant families, schools that were good places to learn and churches and synagogues that were filled on days of prayer, have suffered the ravages of abandonment and decay. In the decade from 1980 to 1990, Chicago lost 41,000 housing units through abandonment, Philadelphia 10,000, and St. Louis 7,000. The story in our older small communities has been the same, and the trend continues. It is important to understand that it is not just the buildings we are losing. It is the sense of our past, the vitality of our communities and the shared values of those precious places. We need not stand hopelessly by as passive witnesses to the loss of these irreplaceable historic resources. We can act, and to that end I am introducing today with a bipartisan group of my colleagues the Historic Homeownership Assistance Act. This legislation is almost identical to legislation introduced in the 105th Congress as H.R. 1134. It is patterned after the existing Historic Rehabilitation Investment Tax Credit. That legislation has been enormously successful in stimulating private investment in the rehabilitation of buildings of historic importance all across the country. Through its use we have been able to save and re-use a rich and diverse array of historic buildings: landmarks such as Union Station in Washington, D.C.; the Fox Paper Mills, a mixed-used project that was once a derelict in Appleton, WI; and the Rosa True School, an eight-unit low/moderate income rental project in a historic building in Portland, Maine. In my own State of Florida, since 1974, the existing Historic Rehabilitation Investment Tax Credit has resulted in over 325 rehabilitation projects, leveraging more than $238 million in private investment. These projects range from the restoration of art deco hotels in historic Miami Beach, bringing economic rebirth to this once decaying area, to the development of multifamily housing in the Springfield Historic District in Jacksonville. The legislation that I am introducing today builds on the familiar structure of the existing tax credit but with a different focus. It is designed to empower the one major constituency that has been barred from using the existing credit--homeowners. Only those persons who rehabilitate or purchase a newly rehabilitated home and occupy it as their principal residence would be entitled to the credit that this legislation would create. There would be no passive losses, no tax shelters, and no syndications under this bill. Like the existing investment credit, the bill would provide a credit to homeowners equal to 20 percent of the qualified rehabilitation expenditures made on an eligible building that is used as a principal residence by the owner. Eligible buildings would be those that are listed on the National Register of Historic Places, are contributing buildings in National Register Historic Districts or in nationally certified state or local historic districts or are individually listed on a nationally certified state or local register. As is the case with the existing credit, the rehabilitation work would have to be performed in compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's standards for rehabilitation, although the bill would clarify the directive that the standards be interpreted in an manner that takes into consideration economic and technical feasibility. The bill also makes provision for lower-income home buyers who may not have sufficient federal income tax liability to use a tax credit. It would permit such persons to receive a historic rehabilitation mortgage credit certificate which they can use with their bank to obtain a lower interest rate on their mortgage. The legislation also permits home buyers in distressed areas to use the certificate to lower their down payment. The credit would be available for condominiums and co-ops, as well as single-family buildings. If a building were to be rehabilitated by a developer for sale to a homeowner, the credit would pass through to the homeowner. Since one purpose of the bill is to provide incentives for middle-income and more affluent families to return to older towns and cities, the bill does not discriminate among taxpayers on the basis of income. It does, however, impose a cap of $40,000 on the amount of credit which may be taken for a principal residence. The Historic Homeownership Assistance Act will make ownership of a rehabilitated older home more affordable for homeowners of modest incomes. Ii will encourage more affluent families to claim a stake in older towns and neighborhoods. It affords fiscally stressed cities and towns a way to put abandoned buildings back on the tax roles, while strengthening their income and sales tax bases. It offers developers, realtors, and homebuilders a new realm of economic opportunity in revitalizing decaying buildings. Mr. Speaker, this bill is no panacea. Although its goals are great, its reach will be modest. But it can make a difference, and an important difference. In communities large and small all across this nation, the American dream of owning one's home is a powerful force. This bill can help it come true for those who are prepared to make a personal commitment to join in the rescue of our priceless heritage. By their actions they can help to revitalize decaying resources of historic importance, create jobs and stimulate economic development, and restore to our older towns and cities a lost sense of purpose and community. I urge all Members of the House to review and support this important legislation, and I look forward to working with the Ways and Means Committee to enact this bill.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time. I would like to associate my remarks with both of the gentlemen from New York. Joe DiMaggio was a constituent of mine living in Hollywood, Florida. And when the Hall of Famer Joe DiMaggio died last week, baseball fans of course lost a great hero. However, the children of south Florida lost more than a hero. They lost an advocate. While humbly turning away the attention of adults, Joe DiMaggio always had time for children. During his years of retirement in south Florida, the baseball great was particularly concerned with helping alleviating the pain and loneliness of sick children. As a result of his concern and compassion, the Joe DiMaggio Children's Hospital was dedicated in Hollywood, Florida in 1992. Although he ordinarily shied way from celebrity events and public attention, Joe DiMaggio faithfully made exceptions for the children at the hospital. Without fail, Joe DiMaggio lent his name and his efforts to fund-raising events and publicity for the hospital, including the annual celebrity baseball game fund-raiser. His aim was to improve the quality and accessibility of medical services for children of all economic classes. Because of this, no child is turned away from the Joe DiMaggio Children's Hospital due to lack of financial resources. But the most special gift Joe DiMaggio gave to the Children's Hospital was his personal time. Each month, without fanfare, Joe DiMaggio would roam the halls of the ward which bears his name visiting with sick children and their families, posing for pictures, telling stories, signing autographs, and giving an encouraging word or just a gentle smile. Knowing of his great regard for personal privacy, I see that these acts were a great sacrifice for DiMaggio which he made for the suffering kids. Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to Joe DiMaggio for his contributions to Broward and Dade Counties. Like the rest of the Nation, I am saddened by the loss of this hero of children. While his Hall of Fame records may be broken, Joe DiMaggio's healing touch in the halls of the Joe DiMaggio Children's Hospital will live on forever.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to J. Michael Cook, who is stepping down as chairman and chief executive officer of Deloitte & Touche, one of the world's largest professional services firms. Mike has led D&T since 1989, making him the longest-standing chief executive of all the Big Five accounting and consulting firms. During his tenure, the firm has experienced phenomenal growth. Today, D&T has revenues of more than $9 billion and an annual growth rate of 22 percent, putting the firm first among its competitors. Equally significant has been Mike's emphasis on recruiting and retaining talented professional--especially capable women. That initiative, along with other creative incentives has earned D&T national recognition and the #8 position on Fortune's list of best places to work. Mike has also been active in promoting worthy causes. Most recently, he served as the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the United Way of America. As one of the few accountants currently serving in Congress, I commend Mike on his many accomplishments, which have earned him the respect and admiration of so many in the profession. I wish him, his wife Mary Anne, and their three children my sincerest best wishes.

Mr. SHAW

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

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 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 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher).

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), 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 just comment on the comments of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) with respect to what the Subcommittee on Social Security has been doing and what the full Committee on Ways and Means has been doing since the beginning of this Congress. We have already had more hearings on Social Security than we did on welfare reform, and that is just from the beginning of this year, than we had in drafting the welfare reform bill. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a valuable member of the Subcommittee on Social Security, knows this well. He has attended these hearings, and he has been very attentive in these hearings, so I would not want anyone listening to this proceeding to in any way think that Congress has been sitting on its hands. It has not. There will be proposals out there, and these proposals will be in the form of draft legislation. I would hope and I intend to, as the subcommittee chairman, to be part of a majority bill that will be put in place and hopefully will become the framework for moving forward on a bipartisan solution. I would also invite the minority to put forth their bill. I would also invite the President to put forth his bill. They will be received with great courtesy and cooperation, and I would pledge hearings on any such bills that would come before my subcommittee that have the backing of the minority party or the White House. I believe this is very important. That is how strongly I feel about a bipartisan solution and a bipartisan effort. The Committee on Ways and Means is working very, very hard. The system is in crisis and we do need to find a solution, because we can avoid this crisis very early and be sure that the Social Security system is in place and continues to be a very safe system for all Americans, both of this generation and generations to come. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to respond to the gentleman from California with regard to the remarks that he has made. We have heard the minority trash a proposal which has been characterized as a Republican proposal which has not been made as yet. There is no Republican proposal out there. We have had hearings, we have had statements with regard to the direction we should go, but there has not been a concrete proposal laid upon the table. By contrast, I think it is interesting to note that on this side not one single speaker has gotten up and trashed the President's proposal. The President's proposal is out there. I am treating it with great courtesy. I want to encourage the President and his staff and the Treasury Department and all those connected with the Social Security system to come forward with a concrete proposal in writing that we can receive. So I am hopeful yet that we do receive a formal proposal from the President. The purpose of this resolution is to bring us together, to show that there is some unity in this House between Democrats and Republicans. I am not going to spoil the day by going out and trying to retaliate and bring about argument or try to accent what separates us, because this resolution is what brings us together. Both sides have said that we are going to preserve the Social Security system. Both sides have said that we are not going to raise payroll taxes. Both sides have said that we are not going to cut benefits. When you have that as a perimeter, there is not too many other places you can go except to look at the investment of the system itself. That is where we are going to concentrate. That is where we are going to have to move forward. This resolution is a good step forward, albeit a single step forward, but it is a good step forward in trying to show that there is unity in this House, that we do have unity of purpose and that we are going to draw together. I will be actually out there soliciting help from the minority side in trying to craft this legislation to see that we can come up with something that is quite meaningful. This task is far too important than to bicker in a partisan manner. This is the most important item to come before this Congress either this year or next year. It would be a terrible tragedy if we were to back away from this point of history. We have a surplus. We have divided government. Both of those are very important. Because we need the divided government to be sure it is bipartisan, and we need the surplus to be sure that we save Social Security. Mr. Speaker, I urge the passage of the resolution.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.J. Res. 32.

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

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, our work on Social Security is well under way. We have held numerous Social Security hearing already this year, and the President has provided us with a framework for the Congress to consider as we work towards a bipartisan solution to Social Security's problems. In fact, we are in agreement with President Clinton on many of the major issues relating to preserving and strengthening our Social Security system; namely, one, action is necessary now to shore up Social Security's financial underpinnings; two, 62 percent of the Federal budget surplus should be set aside until Social Security is indeed saved; three, investment in markets can be a part of the long- term solution for Social Security; and, four, personal savings accounts are both technically feasible and a necessary part of the solution. Passage of H.J. Res. 32 will add to this strong start and will further strengthen our bipartisanship as we face the challenges ahead. The joint resolution says that Congress and the President should protect benefits for current and future retirees while avoiding any tax increases. On a program as vital to our country as Social Security, I am sure all of my colleagues will agree that we must work together, and H.J. Res. 32 is a measure that deserves all of our support. I hope they will join with me in showing the American people that Congress is committed to strengthening and preserving Social Security for the future and for future generations. Let me also add that I view this resolution as a test of whether the two parties can work together. We certainly did in the passage of this in the full committee. If we divide into partisanship over a simple, noncontroversial resolution affirming our support for Social Security, why should the American people expect us to be able to work together to actually save Social Security. Whatever our differences may be, and I am sure we will have plenty of differences, surely we can agree on this resolution as it is vitally necessary to the future of Social Security that we do work together and we work together in this Congress. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 32) expressing the sense of the Congress that the President and the Congress should join in undertaking the Social Security Guarantee Initiative to strengthen and protect the retirement income security of all Americans through the creation of a fair and modern Social Security Program for the 21st Century, as amended.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), the architect of this joint resolution.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary Miller). (Mr. GARY MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith), who has early on been working very hard on a reform package.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, as a Member of Congress, I am continually seeking sound policy changes that will make and keep our economy productive, create jobs and improve the overall quality of life for Americans. It is my belief that an important element of a productive economy is modern, efficient and environmentally responsible space for Americans to work, shop and recreate. In order to create and maintain such space, a building owner must regularly change, reconfigure or somehow improve office, retail and commercial space to meet the needs of new and existing tenants. I believe that the Internal Revenue Code's cost recovery rules associated with leasehold improvements are an impediment for building owners needing to make such improvements. Therefore, I am pleased to introduce this legislation to change the cost recovery rules associated with leasehold improvements. Simply stated, this legislation would allow building owners to depreciate specified building improvements using a 10-year depreciable life, rather than the 39 years required by current law, thereby matching more closely the expenses incurred to construct these improvements with the income the improvements generate under the lease. To qualify under the legislation, the improvement must be constructed by a lessor or lessee in the tenant-occupied space. In an effort to ensure that the legislation is as cost efficient as possible, improvements constructed in common areas of a building, such as elevators, escalators and lobbies, would not qualify; nor would improvements made to new buildings. Office, retail, or other commercial rental real estate is typically reconfigured, changed or somehow improved on a regular basis to meet the needs of new and existing tenants. Internal walls, ceilings, partitions, plumbing, lighting and finish each are elements that might be the type of improvement made within a building to accommodate a tenant's requirements, and thereby ensure that the work or shopping space is a modern, efficient, and environmentally responsible as possible. Unfortunately, today's depreciation rules do not differentiate between the economic useful life of a building improvement--which typically corresponds with a tenant's lease-term--and the life of the overall building structure. The result is that current tax law dictates a depreciable life for leasehold improvements of 39 years--the depreciable life for the entire building--even though most commercial leases typically run for a period of 7 to 10 years. As a result, after- tax cost of reconfiguring, or building out, office, retail, or other commercial space to accommodate new tenants or modernizing workplaces is artificially high. This hinders urban reinvestment and construction job opportunities as improvements are delayed or not undertaken at all. Additionally, a widespread shift to more energy-efficient, environmentally sound building elements is discouraged by the current tax system because of their typically higher expense. For example, the Natural Resources Defense Council notes that commercial lighting alone consumes more than one-third of the electrical energy produced in the United States. If a greater conservation potential of energy-efficient lighting were to be realized, the demand for the equivalent of one hundred 1,000-megawatt powerplants could be eliminated, with corresponding reductions in air pollution and global warming. Reform of the cost recovery rules for leasehold improvements has been long overdue but we are making progress. A few years ago, Congress enacted legislation I sponsored, along with my colleague Mr. Rangel, that would clarify that building owners are permitted to fully deduct and close out any unrecovered leasehold improvement expenses remaining at the time a lease expires and the improvements are demolished. Resolution of the ``close-out'' issue was an important reform step. Modifying the recovery period for improvements is the logical and reasonable next step in the reform process. This legislation should be enacted this year. This would acknowledge the fact that improvements constructed for one tenant are rarely suitable for another, and that when a tenant leaves, the space is typically built-out over again for a new tenant. It is important to note that prior to 1981 our tax laws allowed these improvement costs to be deducted over the life of the lease. Subsequent legislation, however, abandoned this policy as part of a move to simplify and shorten building depreciation rules in general to 15 years. Given that buildings are now required to be depreciated over 39 years, it is time to face economic reality and reinstate a separate depreciation period for building improvements to tenant occupied space. Mr. Speaker, I urge my fellow members to review and support this important job producing, urban revitalization legislation. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Ways and Means Committee to enact this bill.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, today over 2 million businesses pay taxes as S Corporations and the vast majority of these are small businesses. The S Corporation Revision Act of 1999 is targeted to these small businesses by improving their access to capital, preserving family-owned business, and lifting obsolete and burdensome restrictions that unnecessarily impede their growth. It will permit them to grow and compete in the next century. Even after the relief provided in 1996, S corporations face substantial obstacles and limitations not imposed on other forms of entities. The rules governing S corporations need to be modernized to bring them more on par with partnerships and C corporations. For instance, S corporations are unable to attract the senior equity capital needed for their survival and growth. This bill would remove this obsolete prohibition and also provide that S corporations can attract needed financing through convertible debt. Additionally, the bill helps preserve family-owned businesses by counting all family members as one shareholder for purposes of S corporation eligibility. Under current law, multi-generational family businesses are threatened by the 75 shareholder limit which counts each family member as one shareholder. Also, nonresident aliens would be permitted to be shareholders under rules like those now applicable to partnerships. The bill would eradicate other outmoded provisions, many of which were enacted in 1958. The following is a detailed discussion of the bill's provisions.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, on opening day of the 106th Congress, I, along with my colleague Mr. Stark and a broad bipartisan group of our colleagues introduced the Structured Settlement Protection Act, H.R. 263. This bill would address the serious public policy concerns that are raised by transactions in which so-called factoring companies purchase recoveries under structured settlements from injured victims. Recently there has been dramatic growth in these transactions in which injured victims are induced by factoring companies to sell off future structured settlement payments intended to cover ongoing living and medical needs in exchange for a sharply-discounted lump sum that then may be dissipated, placing the injured victim in the very predicament the structured settlement was intended to avoid. As long-time supporters of structured settlements and the congressional policy underlying such settlements, we have grave concerns that these factoring transactions directly undermine the policy of the structured settlement tax rules. The Treasury Department shares these concerns. Because the purchase of structured settlement payments by factoring companies directly thwarts the congressional policy underlying the structured settlement tax rules and raises such serious concerns for structured settlements and injured victims, it is appropriate to deal with these concerns in the tax context. Accordingly, H.R. 263 would impose a substantial excise tax on the factoring company that purchases the structured settlement payments from the injured victim. The excise tax would be subject to an exception for genuine court-approved hardship cases to protect the limited instances of true hardship. Mr. Speaker, too many Americans have been taken advantage of through the purchase of structured settlements by factoring companies. I urge my colleagues to join me to end this abusive practice.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), for yielding this time to me. Mr. Speaker, I want to speak briefly on H.R. 435. While it is a bill that is on the floor under suspension of the rules, which simply means that it is not controversial, that does not mean that it is not vitally important to many workers throughout this country. While H.R. 435 contains many worthy provisions, I am particularly pleased that two sections, which I drafted, were included in this legislation. These two sections concern renewing the Customs user fee and language that would benefit domestic boat shows, respectively. As my colleagues may recall, in 1997, the Customs user fee expired and thereby caused a possible diminution in Customs inspectors at Florida ports where the fee was being collected. To avoid disruption of the cruise ship industry, Congress passed a bill I introduced, H.R. 3034, which preserved Customs inspections in Florida for fiscal year 1998, but 1998 only. Now that we are well into a new fiscal year, Customs inspectors serving Florida cruise ships are again in jeopardy. Passage of H.R. 435 today will ensure that Customs inspectors at Florida ports are preserved and it will also allow the cruise ship industry to schedule new cruises without being impeded by a shortage of manpower at Customs. While this legislation is good news for Florida, I am especially pleased that an agreement has been reached to reduce the price of the Customs user fee to $1.75. As my colleagues may recall, at one time the fee was as high as $6.50. At this new level, few can consider the Customs fee burdensome or unreasonable in any respect. The cruise ship business is an important component of Florida's tourism industry. If Florida were to lose Customs inspectors, it would cause grievous harm to my State's economy. Enactment of the bill under consideration today will preserve job layoffs, disruptions and financial losses in this vital industry. I am also pleased that the amended text of H.R. 2770, a bill that I introduced in the last Congress, was included in this bill. This legislation would defer the duty on large yachts imported for sale at boat shows in the United States. Boat shows are important generators of economic activities and this legislation will promote greater commerce in the yachting industry. Mr. Speaker, I would urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 435.