E. Shaw

Mr. SHAW

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 the resolution now under consideration.

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

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3034) to amend section 13031 of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, relating to customs user fees, to allow the use of such fees to provide for customs inspectional personnel in connection with the arrival of passengers in Florida, and for other purposes.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlemen for yielding me this time. I would like to congratulate the gentleman and the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin], the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer], and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel] for getting together and bringing such a wonderful bill that is long past due to the floor of this Congress. I think perhaps the most shivering words that anybody can hear is the knock on the door or the phone call or the letter that starts out, I am from the IRS, because of the complexity of the Tax Code and the problems involved in filing one's own return. Not too many years ago, I think it was just 2 years ago, an accounting problem was given to the top accounting firms in the United States and asked them to take this example and, from this, to devise an income tax return and to figure the tax liability from that set of circumstances that were given. Out of the many tax preparers that participated in this experiment, not one of them came up with the same tax liability. It was not even close. It was thousands and thousands of dollars apart. It just shows the tremendous complexities of the Tax Code and the problems that they have. During the debate on the floor, I know it has been going back and forth as to the complexities that were put into the Tax Code and whether the Democrats or Republicans did it. I do not think that makes any difference. It is this Congress that is bringing about the correction and is bringing it about in a bipartisan way, as a beginning, I would say, as a beginning. Under the new rules that we have imposed upon ourselves, when we give somebody a tax break, we have got to work in revenue somewhere else in the Code. What has this developed over the years? It has developed a patchwork quilt. It has provided for us a real mess that is going to take a lot of effort, a lot of bipartisan effort, to straighten out. The only way to do it is to try to get together and to at least get some bipartisan support. It is not going to be complete. There will be a lot of controversy when it finally goes. But this Code has to be ripped up by the roots. Now, this is going to balance the playing field as far as the Internal Revenue Service for the taxpayers. This is tremendously important. The Internal Revenue Service should be more of a service rather than a policeman in watching over the taxpayers. But in doing this, it is just basic fairness. We do not want to give the police in this country a criminal code that is so complicated that they do not know how to administer it or to enforce it, but yet we have done this with the IRS. To make it worse, we have provided that the taxpayer has no privacy or right of confidentiality with their CPA. In this regard, I think it is most important that when somebody is talking to their tax preparer, when they are going over all their books and records, that they know that their tax preparer is not going to be called in and questioned because he has no particular rights of confidentiality. This particular bill will correct this situation and let the taxpayer have confidence, the same confidence that he has in dealing with his lawyer, and that is only fair. I think one of the other big things in this bill that other Members have talked about today but is tremendously important, it puts the burden of proof on the IRS instead of the taxpayer. I remember in studying the Tax Code as a student in college and at law school that it always was confusing to me how we could have this sense of justice where a taxpayer has to prove his innocence as far as the amount of taxes that are owed in order to prove his case and the IRS really does not have to prove anything. This is bringing about fairness, and for the first time the burden of proof will be on the IRS. This is a tremendous bill. This is a first step. I want to say, it is only a first step in ripping out the entire Code to reform the Code and perhaps even give us the opportunity, the historic opportunity, to take, eliminate the income tax as we know it today and, in its place, put another type of revenue collection for the Federal Government that will be fairer, easier to administer, and much easier and fairer in being able to enforce by the Federal Government. Again, my compliments for all of those who put this bill in place. It certainly is, I think, a very, very good day in the history of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in support of S. 931, a bill which honors two south Floridian conservation pioneers, Ernest Coe and Marjory Stoneman Douglas. S. 931 names the main visitor center at the Everglades National Park the Ernest F. Coe Visitor Center and designates 1.3 million acres in the park as the Marjory Stoneman Douglas Wilderness. Ernest Coe, widely recognized as the father of the Everglades National Park, labored for more than 20 years with a single-minded determination to create a national park for the protection of the birds, panthers, and hundreds of other species of wildlife indigenous to Florida. Almost 70 years ago, Coe presaged the societal pressures which would have threatened this unique habitat and made the designation of the park his purpose in life. Floridians owe him a debt of gratitude, and, indeed, the entire Nation does. This bill also honors Marjory Stoneman Douglas. So much has been written about this woman's incredible life. Ms. Douglas has achieved near legendary status. At 107 years old, Ms. Douglas remains the single greatest icon of Everglades restoration and a true south Florida treasure. Although it is difficult to conceive in 1997, the Everglades before World War II was considered by most to be a worthless swamp and a hindrance to development and industry. Ms. Douglas was among the first to suggest that the Federal Government's construction programs to drain and redirect the river of grass might upset the natural cycles on which the whole south Florida ecosystem relies. Thanks to Ms. Douglas' foresight, this ecological treasure is now protected in perpetuity. Mr. Speaker, on the eve of the golden anniversary of the founding of the Everglades National Park, I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to applaud Baseball's 1997 World Series Champions, the Florida Marlins. As a representative of South Florida and a native of Dade County, I am delighted to call the Marlins my ``home team''. From the magnificent bald eagle's graceful flight into Pro Player Stadium to open Game One until Edgar Renteria's winning hit in the 11th inning of Game Seven, the World Series highlighted all that is great about the Florida Marlins and their fans. In five short years, this upstart expansion team has done what no other Major League team could do. The Marlins organization combined the talent, dedication, heart and fan support, to win not just the National League pennant, but to achieve the consummate prize in baseball. This accomplishment was made possible through teamwork. The dream began with owners Wayne and Marti Huizenga and with Carl Barger. Team manager Jim Leyland and the players took on the challenge, and the organization and the fans provided the support and cheered them on. The Marlins are a team of destiny in the greatest sense of the word. Everyone involved since Day One made a crucial contribution to the team, and the result was the World Series Championship. Mr. Speaker, the Florida Marlins fans are some of the most impressive I have ever seen. Each Series game at Pro Player broke the attendance record for the one before it, and last night's Rally broke all previous attendance records. The Miami Herald said it best: ``nearly 70,000 South Florida baseball fans exploded, drunk on the joy that comes with earning baseball's biggest gleaming trophy.'' Well done, Florida Marlins. The spirit of Carl Barger lives on, and your fans will never forget the thrill.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill that would greatly enhance the international yachting industry in the United States. Most people are unaware how the sale or even the mere presence of large foreign-owned pleasure boats docked at a domestic port contributes to the local economy. A single large luxury boat can literally pump tens of thousands of dollars into the local economy a month. For example, the cost of supporting a crew, docking fees, boat repairs, supplies, and other related expenditures while the boat is moored at a domestic marina all help the economy and create jobs. Attracting these types of vessels to our shores is therefore beneficial to the economy. In fact, in my congressional district, a significant segment of the local economy is based on the recreational boating trade and its attendant services. Unfortunately, current law and customs regulations as applied to large yachts have the unintended consequence of discouraging the sale of these vessels domestically. This is primarily for two reasons. First, when the yacht is imported into the United States for sale, the duty must be paid immediately, whether the yacht is eventually sold or not. This requirement is onerous for the yacht seller, because if the yacht is not sold, he or she cannot get a timely or full refund of the duty. This is due to the lengthy procedure--9 months to a year--that the Customs Service administrative process takes. If the value of the yacht exceeds $1 million, the loss of funds to the seller can be quite substantial. Second, there is an old maxim among boaters that ``every boat is for sale.'' Consider this scenario: a foreign boatowner enters U.S. waters, without intending to sell his or her boat. An interested buyer propositions the foreign owner, and informal negotiations ensue. Once the owner of the foreign boat offers the vessel for sale--and this sometimes can be a gray area--if a duty has not been paid on the boat, it can be immediately seized by the Customs Service. While such actions by the Customs Service are rare, this policy has a chilling effect on potential foreign boat sellers interested in entering the country because they are fearful their boats will be seized and impounded even if they casually talk to someone interested in purchasing their boat. To avoid this risk, some of these sellers conclude the sale of the boat offshore, where no duty is paid and no economic benefits are realized for the local economy. My bill would remedy this problem by deferring payment of the duty on large pleasure boats until after the sale has been consummated. In order to ensure that the duty is paid when the boat is sold, the foreign seller would be mandated to post a bond, the value of which would be twice the amount of the duty. Because the value of the bond would be twice the duty on the boat the Federal Government would be virtually guaranteed of receiving its duty. Moreover, I have narrowly tailored this legislation so it applies only to large pleasure boats that are intended to be sold at domestic boat shows. I am hopeful this provision has the effect of not only promoting America's boat shows-- which are among the largest and best in the world--but also ensuring the sale of these boats occur in an orderly setting. Mr. Speaker, south Florida is the boating capital of the world. My bill helps make our ports and boat shows more attractive to international yacht sellers. Because this type of economic activity is highly beneficial to the economy, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1479, a bill designating the U.S. courthouse in Miami as the ``David W. Dyer Federal Building and United States Courthouse.'' Mr. Speaker, Judge David Dyer was a distinguished jurist in Florida for over 30 years. Judge Dyer was born in Ohio in 1910, and moved to Florida in the early 1930's to complete his third year of law school at Stetson University, my law school alma mater. Judge Dyer was a Florida lawyer in private practice from 1933 until 1961, except for the time he served in the Army during World War II. In 1961, he was appointed to the Federal bench by President John F. Kennedy. Five years later, President Lyndon Johnson elevated Judge Dyer to the court of appeals. After a decade serving as an appellate court judge, Judge Dyer assumed senior status. Mr. Speaker, during his long career on the bench, Judge Dyer wrote important legal opinions in a number of areas, but many legal scholars believe his greatest impact was in the arena of civil rights. When Judge Dyer was appointed to the Federal bench in 1961, Florida was still a State not fully desegregated. Thanks in part to Judge Dyer's foresight and courage to enforce the law and uphold the Constitution, racial discrimination sanctioned by the law was rooted out and eliminated in Florida. It is fitting to honor Judge Dyer for his long and distinguished service by passage of this legislation. I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 1479.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I am introducing legislation today to restore the exclusion of shipping income from subpart F of the Internal Revenue Code. When first enacted, subpart F did not tax the shipping income of foreign corporations owned by U.S. citizens. Shipping companies owned by U.S. citizens were allowed to compete on terms comparable with companies owned by foreign nationals. As a result, the U.S.-owned fleet represented over 25 percent of the total world fleet. The U.S.- controlled fleet made significant contributions to the Nation's security and it promoted the development of major shipping centers in the United States. The U.S.-controlled fleet alone generated hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenues as a result of the voluntary repatriation of earnings from the fleet and the associated infrastructure generated billions of additional dollars of taxable economic activity. In 1975, subpart F was amended to include shipping income that was not reinvested. As a result of the tax change, the U.S.-owned fleet began to decline and the centers of international shipping in the United States began their decline in prominence. As the once significant U.S.-owned fleet was forced to expatriate to remain competitive, related industries, including insurance brokers, ship management companies, surveyors, chartering brokers, technical consultants, and many others who provide services to the maritime industry followed. Tax revenues also declined. In 1986, this mistake was compounded with the imposition of taxes on reinvested shipping income. The U.S.-owned fleet now represents less than 5 percent of the world fleet. Our major trading partners, on the other hand, have taken a different approach. They have adopted tax policies to ensure that their international shipping is competitive in world markets. As a result, the economic leadership of the United States in this vastly important sector of the economy has been lost. We simply do not have the fleet or the infrastructure to support even a modest percentage of our own international trade. Subpart F has even contributed to the transfer foreign of the once significant U.S. flag fleet, which depends on foreign flag feeder vessels to be competitive. Recent transactions, including the agreement of Neptune Orient Lines to acquire APL, raise the troubling possibility of foreign control of the majority of the government supported U.S.-flag fleet. it makes little sense to spend scarce taxpayer dollars to support U.S.-flag shipping only to have our misguided tax policies undermine their competitive opportunities in international trade. Restoring this exclusion also reflects sound tax policy. The United States generally does not tax U.S. shareholders on income until that income is realized, that is, the shareholders have dominion and control over the income. Subpart F of the Internal Revenue Code creates an exception to this general rule by taxing a U.S. parent corporation, or significant individual U.S. investor, on the income earned by a foreign subsidiary whether or not that income is paid to the U.S. parent, for example, in the form of dividends. Shipping income of such a U.S.- controlled foreign corporation [CFC] is subject to current taxation under subpart F, regardless of whether those earnings are distributed to its U.S. shareholders. But deferral properly remains the general rule, not the exception, under U.S. law. There is no evidence whatsoever that the tax policy justifications for the application of subpart F--that seek to prevent the tax motivated expatriation of economic activity--apply to international shipping. The U.S.-controlled fleet has declined from over 25 percent of the world fleet in 1975 to less than 5 percent today. This decline has in no way benefited U.S.-flag operations or U.S. employment. There has been no offsetting increase in the investment of U.S. persons in U.S.- flag shipping operations. Thus, however viewed, the current law has been a losing proposition for all U.S. interests. Therefore, I am introducing legislation that will restore the exclusion of shipping income from subpart F of the Internal Revenue Code. While there has been disagreement on how to restore the American- owned fleet in international shipping, this legislation represents the most up to date thinking on how to accomplish that objective. It is the result of many hours of thought and consideration, and has received broad support from important elements of the maritime industry. Specifically, the proposed amendment to the Code would restore the exclusion for non-oil related shipping income from subpart F. This deferral is available to U.S.-controlled groups, that is, groups under common control of the same ultimate owners, that maintain a U.S.-flag fleet of 4 or more ships of 10,000 deadweight tons or 2 or more cruise ships with at least 275 berths for passengers. The U.S.-flat fleet requirement will assure that groups benefiting from deferral will maintain at least a minimum U.S. investment, thereby bolstering the U.S. economy and providing U.S. jobs. It will also apply to shipping companies that operate in the Caribbean. This will serve the policy of fostering development in the Caribbean Basin as enunciated in the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act. Finally, deferral is reinstated for companies that are not engaged in the carriage of the commerce of the United States. There is no conceivable justification for imposing U.S. taxes on the income of these foreign shipping companies controlled by U.S. citizens. To further make available funds for expansion of a U.S.-flag fleet, the proposed amendment permits a controlled foreign corporation to loan funds for acquisition, construction, or reconstruction of a U.S.-flag vessel without triggering U.S. taxation of the funds. Further, the proposed amendment exempts in certain cases interest paid or accrued on the loan from U.S. withholding taxes to further foster investment in, and promote the competitiveness of, the subsidized U.S.-flag fleet. Ultimately, the success of that fleet will depend on policies that will help make U.S. flag operators more competitive. This proposal would do just that. It was unfortunate that this legislation could not have been included in this year's tax reconciliation bill. Nevertheless, I urge my fellow members to support this proposal, which represents the current state of development of restoring America's presence in international shipping. I intend to include it in appropriate legislation at the earliest possible time.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Back in 1988 I was one of the prime sponsors, along with the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] and others, that worked so hard in this area of drug prevention of the original so-called drug czar bill, which was then watered down considerably in conference. This would reestablish much of the power that many of us back then, in a very bipartisan way, were supporting in order to try to get a handle on this Nation's growing drug problem. What has happened in the last 10 years? In the last 10 years we have spent $103 billion on the war on drugs. I will tell my colleagues that in the last 10 years, we have seen a bipartisan failure in the war on drugs. Neither party can say that they have been successful. Now, what are we doing with this bill? We are setting up expectations. We are setting up goals. We are setting up flexibility. We are setting up more power within the drug czar's office. We are doing all of the right things in order to try to get to what we all want to accomplish, both Democrats and Republicans, and that is to finally start winning some battles in the war against drugs. This country has had absolutely no resolve. Our war on drugs has been a blueprint for failure. We have not actually gone to war with the objective of winning. We have gone to the war on drugs with a Vietnam mentality, and that is the status quo. We talk about putting more resources, even more than this bill does, in education and in treatment. Sure, that is necessary. But if that is all you are going to talk about, it is like bailing the boat out and not plugging the hole, and that is ridiculous. This bill finally sets accountability and responsibility. I personally have a great deal of faith in the present drug czar, General McCaffrey. But if he cannot do it, then step aside and let somebody in that can do it. It is about time that we set our resolve to winning the war on drugs. The greatest possible gift that we can give to the next century, and the President is always talking about the bridge into the next century, the biggest gift that we can give is to cut back addiction in this country, to cut the supply of illegal drugs coming into this country, and to at last, get a grip on this thing that is absolutely killing neighborhoods. It is creating poverty, it is a disaster, it is a national disgrace. This bill fires a shot and it is not just a shot across the bow, this is real progress. I would hope that we do get a bipartisan vote on this, and I hope we get some speakers up on the Democrat side to speak in favor of this bill. It is a good bill and it is the way to go.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman's yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to engage in a brief colloquy with the chairman of the subcommittee. First, I want to thank the chairman for the increase he has given to the National Weather Service in its base operating account. As we know, the NOAA proposal to eliminate important staff positions at the hurricane center in South Florida during the past year caused enormous anxiety throughout Florida. Forecasters as well as their support personnel are vital to the safety of coastal areas like my district in the event of a hurricane, and my district goes from mid Miami beach all the way up to north of Palm Beach to Juno Beach at the south end of Jupiter.

Mr. SHAW. I thank the chairman for clarifying the position of the National Weather Service. This information should be of great comfort to all residents in hurricane-prone areas, whether they be in Florida or elsewhere. I know in my district this issue is an especially important one, as hurricanes threaten our coastlines on an annual basis.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for the increase. I am, however, concerned that these funds can be raided by other divisions at NOAA.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2487) to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the child support enforcement program and thereby increase the financial stability of single parent families, including those attempting to leave welfare, as amended.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government now spends nearly half a billion dollars per year providing the States with incentive payments for good performance in collecting child support, but the current system has serious deficiencies. The Federal Government provides more than half the incentive money virtually without regard to performance. Even worse, although many States have poor child support programs, current laws allow States to use the incentive payment as a kind of kitty for the State treasury. Thus, money that should be used to improve child support programs is used by some States to build roads and bridges. The new system we are considering today, based on work by the administration, directors of State and child support programs, and a bipartisan coalition headed by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Levin] and me, solves both of these problems and more. Under this bill, which was approved unanimously by the Committee on Ways and Means, every penny of the incentive money will be based on performance and States can use the money only on child support activities. The new incentive system created by this legislation is simply one more tool that Congress has enacted to improve the performance of the Federal-State child support program. Many other tools are just now being put in place by State governments as required under last year's welfare reform law. Once all of last year's reforms are in place and once the new incentive program begins to reward high-performance States, I believe we will see a steady improvement in the child support program as more and more single-parent families and children receive sorely needed cash and medical support. Perhaps of the greatest importance, many hundreds of thousands of those helped will be single parents struggling to leave welfare and to stay off of welfare. This bill enjoys bipartisan support and was developed in close cooperation with the administration. The reforms made by this bill will greatly improve the child support program. Let us bring this bill out of the House with a resounding voice so that the Nation's children can start getting the financial support they need and deserve. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I do not have any further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2487.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I am very much aware of the California problem. I have spoken to the gentleman's Governor, he has been in my office, Governor Wilson. Secretary Eloise Anderson was in my office as late as yesterday discussing this problem with me. California it appears has a fragmented system, but it is very high- tech and it is a very good system, and California wants to retain their system. We are going to try to work out a way so that the intention of the law will be brought forward and that various States as California, who have used new technology and has been innovative in the way that they have taken care of their system and updated their system, are not penalized by a Federal mandate if they meet the spirit of the law. So I would say to the gentleman, I look forward to continuing to work with him and other Californians as well as Pennsylvanians and some of the other States the gentleman mentioned, in seeing that they do meet deadlines and that the deadlines are really enforced in a very reasonable way and that the Secretary is given latitude.

Mr. SHAW. If the gentleman will yield further, first I want to make it very clear that California is not going to lose $4 billion. In fact, I would doubt that they will end up in the long run losing anything. Both this Member of Congress as well as the Secretary, and I assume the President, want to leave the deadline in place but want flexibility in administering the consequences. We are looking at the law and we are going to do everything we can to restructure it to answer this California problem.

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

Mr. SHAW. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me to clarify exactly where we are on this, because as the gentleman quite correctly stated, this is not only a problem that the Californians are concerned about, but it is a problem that at least 9 other and perhaps 10 other States are concerned about, as the gentleman said. The deadline was extended under the Welfare Reform Act to October 1 of this year. In that there are a number of States that have tried to comply and been unable to comply for some very technical reasons, we have had this matter under discussion in the committee itself. The way the law presently is written and hopefully will remain is that after this deadline, there is a period of time of approximately 6 months in which the various States can, and I am sure will, appeal in order to pick up the added time and also in order to negotiate with the Secretary, also in order to give this Congress an opportunity to go back and review exactly where we are. It is my intention as chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Resources to bring a bill to the floor, in cooperation with the Secretary, that would give her certain discretion in imposing any penalty, and, of course, I am sure she would never impose the tremendous penalty as to total defunding, as the gentleman pointed out, in California. Nonsupport by noncustodial parents is probably the biggest reason for welfare in this country today. We are only collecting about $14 billion a year out of a total of almost $50 billion that is due. That is a horrible situation, and it is necessary that we solve the problem by making it easier to track the deadbeat parents down in order to be sure that they live up to their obligations. My own State of Florida will probably make the deadline, but I found out in a hearing just the other day that in order to make that deadline it has had to rely on and continue to use an antique computerized system, which it was characterized as. The State of Florida will be on time with the deadline, but they are going to be on time using an Edsel instead of something that would be more modern than that. That is a problem, and it was sort of the law of unintended consequences that took place.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, clause 2(b) of rule XXI states that no provision changing existing law shall be reported in any general appropriation bill. Specifically, in the social services block grant provision of title II of the bill, the amount to which States are entitled under section 2003(c), beginning on line 24 of page 41 of the Social Security Act, is reduced from $2,380 million to $2,245 million. This change of authority over the entitlement amount falls under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means and clearly violates rule XXI 2(b), which prohibits legislating on an appropriations bill. Therefore, the point of order applies, and I urge the Chair to sustain the point of order.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the social services block grant provision in title II of the bill on the grounds that it violates clause 2(b) of rule XXI of the rules of the House.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a number of Members come to the House floor and come in with some figures as to who is getting the basic advantage of this tax cut. We know that well over 70 percent, well over 70, I think it is 76 percent goes to middle income and below of the tax cut that we are looking at. So let us quit playing this game. This is a well-balanced bill. I think that when we are determining who is getting the advantage, I think it is also important that when we define somebody's income that we come to the floor and be really forthright with how we come up with the percentages that we do as to the amount of income that somebody has. As we know, the Treasury came out with some of these figures by actually imputing the rental value of somebody's home that they own and putting that on top of their income as well as other things, which they did not actually enjoy in the form of cash coming in or any type of recognizable income. The imputed income is a very unfair way of defining somebody's income so that we skew the figures. I think when we are talking about who is getting what, that it is very important that we be very factual and that we be very out front with the people. If some of the speakers that have come to the floor are suggesting that we in the Congress or that they in the Congress want to tax the imputed value of somebody's home, I would suggest that that is a very foolish thing and a very foolish position for somebody to have; but I think they should make that point and go forth with it without trying to come up with some phony baloney type of figures here in order to make a point that they want to make that simply is not true and is not acceptable by the vast majority of the American people. I think it is important that we get back on course and we look at the tax breaks and that we look at exactly what we are doing. We are giving the child tax credit, which is a direct cash payment off, directly off the income tax to middle- and lower-income people. The capital gains is something that is enjoyed by people whether they have $30,000 income and a mutual fund or whether they, their income is over $100,000 and they make stock transactions or investing in companies which produce jobs. The American people win with this bill. I would urge all of my colleagues to support it.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman is absolutely correct. That is my understanding. The 1996 welfare reform law specified that States can continue to operate effective workfare programs, and community service and work experience workfare are among the work activities States may count as work. Unlike prior law, that act did not spell out the compensation or other rules for workfare positions, because it was assumed that previous distinction in statutes and case law between workfare and employment would continue to be recognized. However, in May of this year the Department of Labor issued an outrageous guide to ``How Workplace Laws Affect Welfare Recipients'' in which it indirectly claimed that most if not all participants in workfare programs under the welfare law would be considered employees under the law.