E. Shaw

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. There is much concern in this House on both sides of the aisle with every budget that comes before us. It is a document. It is a political document which can become troublesome, particularly during election times. However, it is the responsibility of us to pass a budget. It is our responsibility to read these budgets and to come up with the best particular budget that we can. In reading over the Kasich budget, there was concern and there is concern that has been expressed in this House as to what is going to happen to TANF. That is welfare. It was this Republican Congress that passed welfare reform. We did it in cooperation with the governors in this country, in partnership with the governors of this country. We gave our word to the governors that we were going to hold the funding for 5 years, and that is exactly what we are going to do. I chair the subcommittee that has jurisdiction over TANF, and I will give my word now to each Member in this Congress that we are not going to cut TANF this year. The final budget that comes out of Congress will exactly back us up on that particular matter. We have given our word. We keep our word. Let us get on with this. Let us vote down the Spratt budget and vote up the Kasich budget.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I would congratulate the chairman and the ranking member of both the full committee and the subcommittees for a job well done. This bill is definitely not just an expenditure, it is an investment in the future of this country. I view it as that. I do, however, take exception with one small portion of the bill that I am greatly concerned about. That is cutting into title XX, which is clearly under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means. There are $3 billion that are taken out of that program. Also, the flexibility has been reduced in order to get a budgetary advantage. That is going to require some damage control, and I would tell my colleagues, where the Governors and State legislatures all over this country are going to be very delighted and very happy with what we are going to pass today, but they are going to be coming back and to be very upset with title XX, which is a very important program to all the people across this country.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation entitled the ``Drug-Free Ports Act.'' This bill allows local and state governments the ability to access Department of Justice information for the purpose of doing criminal background checks on port employees or applicants. I am introducing this bill at the formal request of the Broward County (Florida) Commission. I am introducing this bill because of the high incidence of collusion between drug traffickers and port employees. These ``internal conspiracies'' are becoming a major avenue for bringing illegal drugs into the United States. To lessen the chance of future internal conspiracies, my bill would allow the local governing body the option to require port employees or applicants have clean records. The subject of this bill was discussed at length at a House National Security, International Affairs and Criminal Justice subcommittee hearing last July which I attended as an ex-officio member. ``Internal conspirators'' are clever in the ways they help smugglers. They have been known to ``innocently'' swing a container in front of a surveillance camera in order to allow another container filled with drugs to pass through undetected. They also have been known to tip off smugglers regarding the routines of Customs officials to maximize the chance of success in bringing in contraband. According to James Milford, a former head of the DEA in Miami, ``Longshoremen are a source of frustration for us, particularly in South Florida. One of the things that concerns us is the ability of longshoremen to be utilized successfully in pulling cocaine shipments out of cargo and moving it out of the port with impunity.'' In response to reports about internal conspiracies at Florida ports in the press, I requested that the Customs Service do a random sample of the arrest records of longshoremen at the Port of Miami and Port Everglades. The results were disturbing. Of a random sample of 50 Port of Miami longshoremen, 36 had arrest records. Of these 36 persons, they had a total of 213 arrests, including 68 drug arrests. In a random sample of 38 Port Everglades longshoremen, 19 persons had arrest records. Of these 19 persons, they had a total of 73 arrests, including 14 drug arrests. Consider the arrest records from the following three subjects: Subject No. 1 from Port of Miami--arrested for robbery, assault and battery, carrying a concealed firearm, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, aggravated assault, possession of heroin with intent to distribute, possession of cocaine with intent to sell, possession of heroin with intent to sell, grand theft, petty theft, uttering a forged instrument, forgery of a U.S. Treasury check, possession of cocaine, simple battery, aggravated battery, petty theft. Subject No. 2 from Port of Miami--arrested for immigration violation, cocaine possession, marijuana possession, aggravated assault, battery, loitering and prowling, narcotic equipment possession, aggravated assault, possession of a firearm in the commission of a felony, resisting arrest, obstructing justice, aggravated battery, burglary, and cocaine possession within 1,000 feet of a school. Subject No. 3 from Port Everglades--arrested for armed robbery, assault with intent to commit murder, breaking and entering, disorderly conduct, shoplifting, burglary, dealing in stolen property, possession of cocaine, sale of cocaine, domestic violence. Mr. Speaker, since 1953, the Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor has been conducting criminal background checks on certain port employees, and their system has worked well. Considering the torrent of drugs and other contraband that moves in and out of our ports, I do not consider it unreasonable for a local government to require clean records for the people who work on the docks. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to support this needed legislation.

Mr. SHAW

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

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining on either side?

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime of the Committee on the Judiciary. (Mr. McCOLLUM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would say to those that said that there have not been hearings on this bill, there have been over the years. Last year, we had a hearing on it. We had a couple hearings this year. And I would like to also say to those and particularly the gentleman from Ohio, who spoke before the gentleman from California, in talking about a poison pill and the gentlewoman from California talking about a poison pill, the provisions that they are complaining about were written by the administration and given to us for insertion in the bill. I am pleased to speak today on the merits of H.R. 3809, the Drug Free Borders Act of 1998. H.R. 3809 was reported by the Committee on Ways and Means last Thursday, May 14, by a bipartisan vote of 29-0. We have heard so much about fighting the war on drugs, and I am here to tell my colleagues that H.R. 3809 is absolutely essential to this cause. This bill proposes an additional $232 million in Customs authorizations over the President's request for fiscal 1999. I can think of no better reason to support this bill than its ability to provide for 1,745 additional Customs officers and special agents to protect our borders. Yes, that is 1,745 additional Customs people. This authorization will specifically target those areas that have been identified as major drug smuggling and transportation and distribution networks in our country. I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues an example of what these resources would add to the outstanding performance of our Customs officers. In what Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and Attorney General Janet Reno have referred to as the largest, most comprehensive drug money laundering case in the history of the United States law enforcement, Customs just this past weekend seized over four tons of cocaine and marijuana, conducted over 70 arrests, and made over $155 million in illegal laundered drug money in Los Angeles. H.R. 3809 would also correct the problems with the overtime and nighttime pay of Customs officers that has proven to be disturbingly flawed. Overtime payment for work not even performed should stop. Who can argue with that? Night pay at noontime should stop. Who can argue with that? Any savings resulting from the elimination of these problems should fund additional drug enforcement efforts. Who can argue with that? To ensure the integrity of the United States Customs Service, H.R. 3809 would allow the Secretary of the Treasury to rotate up to 5 percent of the Customs officers as of October 1, 1999. This provision would become effective after the conclusion of the current contract between Customs and its union to ensure that it does not abrogate the terms of a national contract, contrary to what has been argued here on this floor today. Finally, H.R. 3809 seeks to eliminate many of the factors that inhibit the Customs officers from performing their drug interdiction effort. Currently, labor negotiations have been cited as a major impediment to these vital efforts. In my state of Florida, for instance, one labor negotiation in Miami has dragged on for almost four years at one of the most critical ports in the country. This bill would allow the Commissioner of Customs to limit any additional negotiations to 90 days. H.R. 3809 simply seeks to give Customs the tools it needs to fight the war on drugs without delay. We cannot afford delay in this war . . . for delay means more drugs getting into the hands of our children. The U.S. Customs Service deserves our praise, my colleagues, but most importantly today, they deserve our support by voting yes to H.R. 3809, in allowing them to do even more in fighting for our nation's future and the future of our children. We must join together to protect our children from the scourge of drugs, without partisanship or special interests. Vote Yes to put our Children first.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would point out to my friend from California that the vote in the Committee on Ways and Means was unanimous; all that were there voted for it with, I believe, one Member voting present. There were no negative votes. It is a very well-thought-out bill. I would also tell my friend from Maryland that we believe that we took care of the problem with regard to the existing contract in that the provision that was talked about as abrogating the rights of a contract does not take place until the existing contract expires in 1999. Also, there is a provision within that contract that very specifically states that if the law should change during the period of the labor contract, that the law would certainly prevail. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert).

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

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to reply to the gentleman from Michigan. The provision that he is claiming that is politicized came from the administration. We did not jump this or spring this on the Democrats. This was requested by the Customs Department themselves. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman).

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Madam Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 1023, the ``Ricky Ray Hemophilia Relief Fund Act of 1998.'' H.R. 1023, sponsored by my friend Porter Goss, is named for Ricky Ray, a 15 year old Florida hemophiliac who died in 1992. This bill represents the best of what government can do to help needy families struggling to overcome personal tragedy. From some, including for the bill's namesake, H.R. 1023 comes too late to provide help. But for many others it will provide welcome relief, and I am proud not only to be an original cosponsor, but also to have helped H.R. 1023 progress through the Ways and Means Committee to the House floor today. Even though the bill was first marked up by the Judiciary Committee, an important component is the promise H.R. 1023 would keep by continuing Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits to needy individuals, which falls under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means and the Subcommittee on Human Resources that I chair. These critical benefits will remain available despite a recent settlement and also new federal funds that otherwise would disqualify hemophiliacs who contracted the AIDS virus through tainted blood products in the 1980s from continued SSI eligibility. There is ample precedent for SSI to ignore such payments, and I can scarcely think of a more worthy class than this limited number of hemophiliacs, many of them children at the time, who have been afflicted with the AIDS virus. The Congressional Budget Office has told us the cost is minimal, especially when compared with the tragedy these individuals and their families have already experienced. Another important feature of the bill is that it would exempt the payments from federal income taxes. Chairman Bill Archer summarized the issue well when the Committee on Ways and Means unanimously approved H.R. 1023 last month: ``No amount of money in the world can fix this tragedy, but we want to make sure that the federal payments are treated as tax-free, as they should be, and that SSI benefits stay unchanged for these innocent victims. They've been through enough as it is.'' Madam Speaker, I commend Congressman Goss for his diligence in pressing for passage of this important bill, and urge all of our colleagues to support it.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, in just a few months, the accounting profession will bid farewell to one of its illustrious members. Ed Weinstein epitomizes what CPAs stand for: honesty, integrity, and forthrightness in all matters. Ed majored in accounting at Columbia University and earned his MBA from the Wharton School. He then joined Touche Ross and Co., and is currently a senior partner in the Deloitte & Touche firm. He has spent most of his professional career in New York and Pennsylvania, and during part of that time he managed the firm's Philadelphia office. But Ed has done more than serve his clients; he serves his community and gives selflessly of his time and talents to many worthy and deserving causes. He is currently involved in the New York City Police Foundation, the Cooper-Hewitt National Museum of Design, and the New York City Public/Private Initiatives Commission. He is a Public Member of the New York City Rent Guidelines Board and is actively involved in Operation Exodus, the United Israel Appeal. Fittingly, Ed has been acknowledged by his peers for his professional and civic activities. The New York Society of CPAs awarded Ed ``The Arthur J. Dixon Public Service Award'' and he received the New York City Police Department's Certificate of Commendation of 1994. As a fellow CPA, I know the accounting profession will surely miss him, but I also know that Ed intends to continue many of the important community activities in which he is currently involved. On behalf of my colleagues, I extend to Ed and his wonderful wife, Sandra, our very best wishes for a long and well-deserved retirement.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support for H.R. 3546, the National Dialogue on Social Security Act of 1998. This bill would initiate the national dialogue on the future of Social Security by way of face-to-face discussion and electronic means, including town hall meetings, Internet chat rooms. In addition to nationwide suggestions, H.R. 3546 would also establish a bipartisan panel of eight members appointed by Congress and the President, and these would be equally divided between the two political parties. After a year of study, the panel would present a singular set of recommendations to the Congress and the President, and this would have to be done by February of 1999. Inclusion of ideas from average citizens, seasoned experts and lawmakers makes this truly a national dialogue. It is time for both sides of the aisle, Democrats and Republicans, to unite in an effort to save this most important retirement system: Social Security. The economic well-being of our Nation's seniors has been politicized for far too long. Everyone agrees on the importance of finding a long-term solution to the question of Social Security's solvency, and H.R. 3546 is a critical step towards developing this solution. To engage in a national discussion of the possible solutions for Social Security is to put the national interest above political interest. Mr. Speaker, we need to tackle this monumental issue before it is too late. When the Social Security System was first initiated in 1935, there were 16 workers per retiree. Today, that number has dropped sharply to only 3.3 workers per retiree. By the year 2040, fewer than 2 workers will be supporting each retiree. Congress has the obligation to secure the future of Social Security, not just for the present senior but also for our children, our grandchildren and their grandchildren. It is time to put aside political differences and work together for the future of America. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me and the majority of us in both parties in supporting this important legislation, and I congratulate the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), as well as the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Kennelly) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for working together to bring this legislation to the floor.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, this debate is not about AIDS. This debate is about drug abuse. Let us not lose sight of that fact. We have heard an awful lot coming from the White House. We know that this debate is going on at the White House and did go on at the White House. Much to the President's credit, he came down on the right side and yesterday announced that he would not use existing funding to hand out needles. But that debate is still raging. General McCaffrey came out with a very strong condemnation of using the needle exchange program, and the President in the final analysis agreed with him. But I would disagree with the last speaker when he just said that there is no funding for needle exchange. There is funding out there that can be used for needle exchange. This debate that is going on within the administration has sent out mixed signals, and it is up to the Congress now to set the record straight. The record simply says that there will be no Federal funds used for a needle exchange program that is designed for the injection of illegal drugs. We have heard a lot about Joe Camel. We have heard a lot about cigarette advertising and the effect that that has on our kids. The government has not condoned smoking. But what kind of signals are we going to be sending out if your Federal Government, the government we all love and pledge allegiance to every day in this Chamber, what kind of message are we going to send out if we say, ``You're not supposed to use illegal drugs, but if you do, we'll give you the needles''? That is crazy. That makes absolutely no sense. Tomorrow at 2 o'clock, there is going to be a rally on the steps of this Capitol. There is a bipartisan invitation that has gone out to invite the Members to get together and sign a pledge of not only to continuing the war on drugs but to win the war on drugs. We cannot win the war on drugs by sending out mixed signals. There is one signal that should come out of this House, there is one signal that should come out of this Congress, there is one signal that should come out from our government, and that is illegal drugs kill, they destroy your future, they destroy your neighborhoods, they corrupt this population. Let us get together, let us come out with a single message, and let us not get that message garbled. This vote is about drug abuse. Vote yes on this most important resolution to condemn and to prevent by law the expenditure of Federal funds on a needle exchange program.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2870, the Tropical Forest Conservation Act. Despite international conservation efforts, clearcutting and logging are occurring in tropical rain forests at an astonishing rate. While I am aware of efforts and plans to replace these trees by replanting, I saw no such activity when I visited the Republic of Congo in 1997. Clearcutting of rainforests is particularly tragic because tropical rainforests, with their dense growth and high biodiversity, are home to the greatest number of species of any ecosystem on earth. The majority of these species have yet to be even identified. Moreover, humankind has barely scratched the surface of the uses and medicinal properties of those plants and animals we have already identified. Unchecked logging threatens the existence of thousands of species. Mr. Speaker, because of my trip to the Republic of Congo, I see the urgent need for legislation such as H.R. 2870. This ``debt-for-nature'' exchange would empower developing countries to fight to protect these vital forests against extreme logging practices. Because of the economic status of these developing countries, it is unlikely that the U.S. would ever see these debts repaid. This legislation ensures that the American people get something in return for their generosity. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the Tropical Forest Conservation Act.

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 as 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 work places 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 power plants 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. Two years age, 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 is 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. I urge all Members of the House to review and support this important job producing, urban revitalization legislation, and I look forward to working with the Ways and Means Committee to enact this bill.

Mr. SHAW

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

Mr. SHAW. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I want to speak just briefly about what is happening in Africa. We have heard other speakers talk about the emerging democracies and free market systems that are coming around, but I think also it is important to realize that the colonial powers, the old colonial powers still exist. Even though it is not by law, it is custom on the continent of Africa. There are a lot of things going on in Africa that really demand an American presence. The natural resources are really unsurpassed in the world as the potential for oil and other minerals. Also, of course, the environment of Africa is something we have to be very concerned about. The clear-cutting that is going on in those forests is something that should concern us here in the United States not only because of the preservation of the environment in Africa, but the effect that that has upon our own environment. The hurricanes are formed just off the coast of Africa that affect the East Coast of the United States. If the clear-cutting of the forests is to continue, this is going to have a drastic effect on weather here in the United States. I saw firsthand in the Republic of the Congo some of the problems that they are having with the clear-cutting in that area and the use of the animals as camp meat, everything from the gorillas to the other types of animals that exist in that part of the world. Also, that the Asians are moving into the Africa, and they are doing the clear- cutting; just as happened in Indonesia, it is now continuing on the continent of Africa. I think it is time for us to have the responsible presence of the United States and the United States businesspeople, who have the highest standards of any in the world, to have a continuing presence or a growing presence in Africa. Of course, we know from experience that, and the prior speaker spoke of this, all of the aid that we have thrown into that continent really has not done that much; but I think trade certainly will. We have seen this in other parts of the world. If we adopt a policy of trade, not aid, I think that we are going to see a lot of wonderful things happen on that continent. The future of the world is going to be shared very greatly by the continent of Africa, and I think it is extremely important that we have a United States presence on that continent.

Mr. SHAW

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

Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank the gentleman for offering this amendment. Madam Chairman, this amendment is strictly within the spirit of this legislation and what we are trying to accomplish. I compliment the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) for bringing this to our attention, and I vigorously support his amendment.

Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to compliment the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for a very fine statement. He has put his finger on what we need to attack next, and, that is, the disintegration of the American family. What we have seen from the 1960s to date, much of it was caused by a failed welfare system, but we are trying to correct many of those things. Now we have to go back and teach parental responsibility. The problem that we have, we have got so many of these young adults that are having kids, some of them kids themselves who are having children who have never even lived in a home where there was a male figure. It is disgraceful where this country has gone with the disintegration of the American family. I might say that the next piece of the puzzle in welfare reform is to reverse this trend and go back to the real principles. When we say family values, it should be more than just a political cliche. It should have some real meat to it and something that we all believe in and let us put the emphasis on the family. I compliment the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for those remarks.

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

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 3130, the bill just passed.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of the bill, H.R. 3130, the Clerk be authorized to make technical corrections and conforming changes to the bill.