E. Shaw

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 342, I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. SHAW

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

Mr. SHAW. I say to the gentleman, absolutely not. In fact, section 417 of the 1996 welfare reform law specifically provides that, and I quote, ``No officer or employee of the Federal Government may regulate the conduct of States under this part or enforce any provision of this part, except to the extent expressly provided in this part.'' So the Department of Labor is usurping congressional authority. Further, when proposals were put forth in Congress which attempted to treat workfare participants as employees, they were defeated. For example, an amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra] requiring that workfare participants be covered by labor laws was defeated right here in this Chamber. The bottom line is that the legislative history is very clear. Congress did not intend for the Department of Labor to ruin the welfare reform law by outlawing work. The Clinton Administration has thrown down the gauntlet, first by issuing an outrageous ruling and then by refusing to go along with our efforts to correct this unwarranted attack on welfare reform. Congress will react in an appropriate fashion before this session is over to make sure that families can receive the training and experience they need to leave welfare for work and to support themselves.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise to engage the gentleman from Missouri in a colloquy. Members may be aware of the ongoing debate in this budget legislation over whether workfare participants are employees, but they might benefit by some background on this issue, including a clarification of the intent of last year's welfare reform law.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania, the chairman of the subcommittee, for yielding me this time in order to engage in a brief colloquy. Mr. Chairman, I first of all want to thank the gentleman for the funding that Dade County and Palm Beach County, Florida, received under his committee's appropriation bill. I also appreciate the committee's rejecting the administration's policy to limit the role of the Corps of Engineers in shore protection policies. I am deeply concerned, however, that one project in Broward County, FL for which I requested $17 million, only received $100,000.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman, as usual, is quite correct. However, large portions of Broward's beaches are severely eroded. While this is partly due to storm damage, it is mainly because the life of the project is nearing its end. The expected life of a renourishment project is 10 years, and Broward County is an excellent example of a beach restoration project that has worked exactly as it was designed. In January 1996, Broward County's local sponsor made application for approximately $17 million in fiscal year 1998 appropriations, representing the Federal share of the estimated $27 million for the 12- mile-long Broward County beach nourishment and shore protection project. This Federal cost-share was calculated in two Corps of Engineers approved section 934 reevaluation reports for segment II, which is Hillsboro Inlet to Port Everglades, and section III, which covers Port Everglades to South County Line. The county plans to include appropriate innovative project features, such as highly engineered structures, which will maximize the life of the beach fill, as requested by the State and Federal legislators. Broward County requested the full Federal cost of the project in order to ensure maximum cost efficiencies. In fact, Broward County estimates that past nourishment projects have protected approximately $4 billion in infrastructure from storm damage. However, Broward beaches are reaching minimum storm damage protection right now, and if implementation of the new project does not commence on schedule and we have a hurricane of any great strength, I fear next year I will be back to ask for double the requested amount just to repair the damage. Mr. Chairman, feasibility studies have been completed on the project, and crucially needed additional appropriations could be used to commence action on this project. I thank the chairman for listening to me in the past and for allowing me the chance to provide a more complete explanation of Broward's needs. I yield back to the gentleman.

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

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Ron Magill and the harpy eagle project--an international collaboration which aims to educate today's youth on the necessity of protecting our fragile environment. The harpy eagle project, as it has come to be known, was first conceived of by Mr. Ron Magill, zoological ambassador and director of communications at Miami's Metrozoo. After seeing the tremendous results that Metrozoo's many educational programs have had on area youth, Mr. Magill realized the profound impacts that occurred as a result of educating young Americans about protecting our wildlife. Mr. Magill did not, however, limit his vision of a concerned, earth- friendly future generation to North America. He also recognized the need to educate international youth on the necessity of restoring and maintaining the natural habitat of indigenous animals. Combining his desire to educate with his concern for the harpy eagle, Mr. Magill has created the harpy eagle project. Last month Mr. Magill traveled to Panama for the groundbreaking of an international facility dedicated entirely to the harpy eagle. The harpy eagle, Panama's national bird, is the largest, most powerful bird of prey in the world. It is, quite literally, the top of the food chain in the tropical rain forest and plays an invaluable role in maintaining the delicate balance of life in Panama. Sadly, however, fewer than 20 pairs of harpy eagles exist today in Panama. The species has disappeared altogether in Costa Rica. Mr. Speaker, the Harpy Eagle Center, a facility for which Mr. Magill has worked tirelessly over the past 4 years, will not only educate its visitors on the plight of the harpy eagle, but will also introduce them to the unique diversity of the rainforest. Hopefully, visitors to the center will leave with a newfound interest and concern for the care and protection of the tropical rainforest. It is, after all, only through an enhanced understanding of the ecosystem and of habitat restoration that we can hope to protect our fragile environment for future generations. Mr. Magill also created a wonderfully unique project for the schoolchildren of Panama. Supported by the Panamanian Government, Mr. Magill initiated a competition in which students will paint the harpy eagle. The winning image will become the next postage stamp for the Republic of Panama. Mr. Speaker, I commend Mr. Magill on his hard work and dedication in creating the harpy eagle project. The project has successfully combined Mr. Magill's desire to inform the public of the necessity of protecting our wildlife with the understanding of the importance of international cooperation concerning our environment.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege, along with Chairman Archer of the Committee on Ways and Means, to travel to Brazzaville and then to the Ndoke Forest in the Republic of Congo. While there we spent considerable time with President Lissouba and got to know him quite well, as well as his daughter, who is a medical doctor. President Lissouba by background is a college professor. He is a very gentle man who believes in the democratic process, and believes deeply in the future of his country, and believes deeply in the welfare of the people that he serves. The Republic of Congo is an emerging country in Africa that does have a number of important natural resources. The American investors are finding a friendly reception in Brazzaville as they are investing not only in the oil but also in many of the other assets and resources in the Republic of Congo. I am very concerned, as I am sure other Members are, of the virus of revolution which seems to be spreading across Africa. It is important that we show our resolve to put forth and help enforce and hold in place democratic principles. The election that was scheduled for just next week has been postponed, not because of any fault of the present administration under President Lissouba but because of the revolt that is going on in that country today. Never did I think when we were there just a few months ago that the democratic process would be interfered with as it is today. I would like to speak briefly of another interest that the United States has in the Republic of Congo. The Republic of Congo has been very cooperative with us in looking at and supporting a United States AID project in the Ndoke Forest which goes toward the preservation not only of the rain forest but also of the rain forest elephants that are present there, as well as the rain forest gorillas. These are species that are very much endangered. We have found great cooperation from the Republic of Congo in cooperating with the United States' interest in the preservation of these wonderful creatures. We have also found the need and concern that we have to do more for the preservation of the rain forest, and the great concern that we have as to some of the logging operations which are not only devastating these rain forests, but also because of the use of the gorillas and other wildlife in the area, using them as camp meat. The rain forest does have a very definite effect on our weather. Being from Florida, this is right in the area where hurricanes are created. We do have a very, very large stake in seeing that there is a friendly government that we can work with for the preservation of these great natural resources.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of entering into a colloquy with the distinguished subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen]. I am disappointed that the committee did not include funding for the Melaleuca Research and Quarantine Facility close to Fort Lauderdale, FL. The committee chose not to include funding although this project was authorized by Congress last year and specifically requested by the administration. Moreover, in previous years the committee has funded this project. Mr. Chairman, this project is critical to the survival, the very survival of the Everglades. Therefore, I hope that you will work with me during the conference committee if the Senate chooses to fund this project.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I would like to read directly from the House bill. Health and safety standards, that is OSHA, established under Federal and State law otherwise applicable to working conditions of employees shall be equally applicable to working conditions of participants engaged in a work activity.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, as we come to the closure of the debate on this, I would like to not only compliment the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], but also the gentleman from South Carolina who, together with the Republicans and his Democrats, sought out a lot of middle ground in working this process through to bring the House bill to the floor. The provisions complained of in the motion to instruct are harmless. It accepts the House provision in the first and the last provision within the motion to instruct. The second provision is written in such a way, I think, to mislead people that the House provision was blind to the protections that workers would have. I would encourage all Members on this side of the aisle to go ahead and support the motion. It does no harm to the House position. I think, as a matter of fact, my interpretation of it is in very strong support of the House position, and that is where the conferees should start out and hopefully end up on a lot of these provisions. I do want to make it very clear, however, to Members listening to the debate that what we are talking about when we talk about some of these things that might be missing such as unemployment compensation, FICA, some of these other provisions that are the only benefits that these people are not receiving, when they go into the private sector, they will receive full benefits. There is no discrimination against people when they become employees when coming off of welfare. As a matter of fact, we do everything we can to get them out there in a permanent job in the private sector where they receive all the benefits. This is not a question of class warfare, class distinction, or taking away the rights of the American workers. They are fully protected as they should be protected. We are talking only about the provision when they are doing public service jobs so that they do not lose their benefits. That is what is important.

Mr. SHAW. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I guess we should start out the argument in this particular phase of where we are today as ``been there, done that.'' As a minority party, we have been there, we have done that. Now I think it is a question of whether or not we are going to record a vote. Of course we are going to record a vote. We have been there, we have done that, too. What do we do? We try to get this thing couched in a way that could cause some embarrassment to the majority. We have been there, we have done that. So let us get rid of the question of whether or not they are acting unfairly, because we have been there and we have done that. I would like to take a close look at the motion that is before us. The first item talks about, oh, we are not going to raise the retirement age as far as receiving Medicare until age 67. The first generation that is going to have to wait until the age of 67 are those born in 1960, so let us not talk about senior citizens, because we are not. They are totally unaffected. Even people in my age category are unaffected by what the Senate is going to do. Are we going to support the House position? Of course we are. So we get by that one. Then I want to go down to the third one. The third one reads that the motion insists on the House provisions that prohibits sex discrimination in all work activities and assures health and safety protection for all participants. Are we going to support the House position? Of course we are. We wrote it. We negotiated it. I might tell my Democrat friends that they had input in it, and we received some of their input, and together we wrote some of these provisions. Are they going to support that? Of course they are. Are we going to support that? Of course we are, because we put it in the bill. But let us take a look at the second provision in the motion to instruct. That says that the motion rejects language in the House bill that treats certain TANF participants as nonemployees, therefore denying them protection under the Federal antidiscrimination laws: the Fair Labor Standards Act, OSHA, and other workers' protection. Let us take a close look at that. Let us look at existing law, the welfare bill that was signed into law by the President on August 22, 1996. That has a provision, a nondiscrimination provision, including, and I am reading directly from the legislation right now, ``The following provisions of law shall apply to any program or activity which receives funds provided under this part.'' Now what applies? We heard somebody talk about discrimination on race. We heard another Speaker say they can discriminate on age. Let us see what is in the law right now that we do not change, that we simply make this a part of. The Age Discrimination Act of 1975, that applies to the people receiving these benefits. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, that applies to people receiving benefits and having to work for their benefits under this bill. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, it applies. We do not take that away. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, that applies. It is in the bill. Read the law. Read the law for once and quit posturing. Then what we do is that we go back and we add to those antidiscrimination provisions. We have a provision as to health and safety. We have another provision as to sex discrimination. I am reading right from it. It says, ``In addition to the protections provided under the provisions of law specified in section'' so and so, ``an individual may not be discriminated against with regard to participation in work activities by reason of gender.'' That is in here. Read it. That is in the House bill. I think it is important that we look and see how far we have come. We have taken the provisions and the safety provisions that are presently in the existing welfare bill and we build upon them. We build upon them, to be sure that workers have more rights. Now, the question is, is there a remedy? Yes, we provide in here that the States have to set up a remedy. Now, with regard to the Civil Rights Act and other Federal laws that I just made reference to, their remedy is just as it always has been and it is for any worker, whether it be through the courts or a complaint to the Federal Government. But we set up a provision that requires the States to set up a remedy with regard to some of these other provisions if people are discriminated against. Mr. Speaker, these are important things to realize. I would like to point to one other provision that was something that was very, very heavily supported by the Democrats. That is a provision that could be, could be seen as discrimination. We cannot displace an existing worker with somebody who is on welfare. That is something that I think Members want in the bill. Is that discrimination? Yes, I would say that is discrimination. If we cannot fill that position and let somebody go because you are going to fill it with somebody coming off of welfare, that is, but I think my Democrat friends would insist upon that, and it makes sense. We went along with it. So I think what we have to do, and I would say here in closing that I have no problem with the motion to instruct. Is it a political document? Of course it is. Does it have any effect of law? Does it bind the negotiators? No, it does not. Does it do any harm? No, it does not. Am I going to vote for it? Of course I am going to vote for it. There is nothing in here that is inconsistent with my responsibility as a conferee, and I intend to support it.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I think people who are watching this debate have to be just totally confused at this time. I think the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer], the chairman, has made a point very, very clearly. If you do not pay income taxes, you do not get income tax relief. Yet, when we hear the speeches going on in the well, as they are talking about all these people are rich, I am sorry, I do not think somebody who makes $20,000 a year is rich. Those are the people, between $20,000 and $70,000, they are the ones who are getting the major part of the relief in this bill, up to 76 percent. That is the bulk of where this relief is coming from. Look at the child credit, the tax credit for people who have kids, this is a huge part of this bill, a huge part, and this does not go to the very wealthy, as I would define very wealthy. It goes to middle-income America. I think when you look at the bill and you try to put it on balance, there are some Members in this House who just cannot stand the idea of giving the American people some tax relief. It has been 16 years. Republicans tried to do it last year. We were in the last Congress, it was vetoed. We have now come together working with the administration in trying to give America a very much-needed tax bill and give them the first tax cut in the last 16 years. That is what we need to talk about. All the rhetoric and all the voice raising and all the yelling and screaming in the well of the House or at any of the microphones around the House is not going to change that. The figures do not lie. That is where the bulk of the tax break is going and that is where it is going to be. One thing that I think all of us need to talk about and need to be concerned about, that is job creation. When we encourage corporate America, encourage small businesses, encourage the American people to invest in jobs, machinery and equipment, we become more competitive. When we talk about our jobs going overseas, we are trying to bring them home. We want people that have invested in machinery and equipment, that creates jobs. We want them to be able to get the tax write-offs that they deserve through the depreciation process. The depreciation process is just simply being able to subtract from your income a small portion every year of your investment so that at the end of the time, you just have not poured money down the drain. The same Members that are complaining about this are the same Members that complain about our jobs going overseas. You cannot have it both ways. We need economic development, economic growth in this country. We have had good economic growth but the jobs have not kept up. Wages have not kept up. This is what this bill is going to do. Let us get away from the rhetoric. Let us stick with the facts and let us support the bill.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, there is also another area that I think that there is great misunderstanding, there is the part referring to SSI for noncitizens. We have a genuine disagreement with the President. We thought we came up with a better solution. The President's plan would call for 60 percent of noncitizens, the elderly, to come off of SSI. We did not want to do that. So what we did, we grandfathered in all of the noncitizens that were receiving SSI on August 22, when the welfare bill was signed. We thought that was much fairer than pushing them out and then having them come back and prove that they were disabled, knowing that roughly half of them would never get back on and they would lose their Medicaid as well as their SSI payments. This is very important. We thought ours was the more humane way to go. The President thought it was best to take the elderly off and exchange their benefits to allow people that were here on August 22 that might become disabled, most of them will not, but those that did become disabled sometime in the future could get onto SSI. It is a disagreement we have, but it I might say in the full committee, after we made our argument, no one even offered the President's plan. No one offered the President's plan in the Committee on Ways and Means. Why? Because they did not want to hear the argument that they were throwing the elderly off. I do not blame them. I would not have offered it either. Another area that I would like to discuss is the area of minimum wage. In this bill, in a very bipartisan manner, we adopted the President's definition of minimum wage. We say in determination of minimum wage when working for your benefits that the only thing that will be included is the cash payments and the food stamps. This is what the President wanted. This is what we gave to the President. This is a bipartisan bill and we have taken a bipartisan attitude in working with many of the Democrats. I hope that we get a good vote. Vote ``yes'' on the bill.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. It is not necessary to stand here and yell when we have the facts with us. We definitely have the facts with us. That is that 76 percent of the tax cuts that we are going to be talking about tomorrow, tax relief for American families, goes to families earning less than $70,000. Now, people listening to this debate would wonder, where in the world are these figures coming from that are being screamed and yelled on the floor and all of these graphs and all of this yelling and signs that are going up? I can tell my colleagues where they came from. Treasury came up with an archaic formula in which they determine somebody's wealth by taking the rental value of the home that they own and add it to their income, the earnings of corporations in which they might own a few shares of stocks and putting that upon them, the economic value of their resources such as their automobile. Come on. Unless the Democrats are going to come out and try to tax that, then this is an absolutely absurd argument. So let us get some truth here on the floor. Let us get to the situation where we are not yelling at each other, that we are simply talking facts. If we are putting that type of income on top of somebody when we start to try to come up with all these figures that simply are not true, I think that at that time we owe it to the American people, we certainly owe it to our colleagues to get up and say how did we determine that income. We do it by simple math and by the amount of earnings that people have. The facts are very clear. This is the first tax relief the American people are getting in the last 16 years. There are some Members that are here on the floor debating that just cannot stand that idea. But I can tell my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike are going to carry this day and we are going to get the first tax relief for the American families in 16 years. That will vindicate this debate.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, there have been several speakers who have come to the floor on the other side of the aisle who have, I am sure unintentionally, misstated what this bill says. I would like to say to them in the area of discrimination that people coming off of welfare certainly are not discriminated against. In fact, they are protected by title VI of the civil rights bill, which reads, and which is incorporated into the law, that ``No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.'' Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington [Ms. Dunn], a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. English], a very valuable member of the committee.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth], a valuable member of the Committee on Ways and Means, and a member of the Subcommittee on Human Resources. Mr. Speaker, I thank the subcommittee chairman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I would invite those who control the television cameras which broadcast these proceedings from coast to coast and around the world to take the proper perspective as I address in this well one of the dangers we face from those who would oppose this reconciliation act, one of the dangers we face from those who continue to distort what is at stake for the American people. Mr. Speaker, I hold here H.R. 3734, one of the crowning achievements of the 104th Congress. Mr. Speaker, it is this bill that took the important steps in the 104th Congress to change welfare as we knew it, to move people from welfare to work. Mr. Speaker, the danger in opposing the provisions that the new majority offers in this act would have the effect of taking this important piece of legislation and throwing it away, dropping it into the trash can, radically changing the intent of what transpires. Good people can disagree. I will offer a perspective that needs to be heard, Mr. Speaker, by the American people and especially those who continue to champion the endless expansion of benefits and the destruction of welfare reform. Let me offer a real story from a real State, the 48th State in this Nation, the one that I represent, Arizona. Let me quote to my colleagues the perspective of the Arizona Department of Economic Security director, Linda Blessing, in talking about the old welfare programs, ``The status quo was not cutting it,'' and to further quote from her statement, ``We handcuffed people into dependency.'' Mr. Speaker, the facts are that we have moved in a successful, deliberate, commonsense fashion to move people from welfare to work. More than 38,000 welfare recipients have dropped off the roles in Arizona since 1994, when the height of the enrollment in our State in that year was 195,000. The taxpayer-supported welfare program in Arizona has helped 23,000 recipients find needed employment training, placed 6,800 recipients in jobs, that is an increase of 1,000 recipients from last year. We need to continue the successful trend, allow States like my home State of Arizona to work with the $3 billion welfare-to-work grant to move yet more families from welfare to work. What we provide for this, this legislation does so because we have listened to the Governors. We have improved the legislation. We have expanded educational benefits. We have taken a commonsense approach. The Federal Government, along with State governments, both made great strides with the welfare reforms passed last year. Now is the time to provide those State and local governments with flexibility. Do not trash welfare reform; build on it. Adopt the resolution.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I have remaining.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, a year ago, approximately a year ago, I stood at this microphone in support of welfare reform, a most historic bill. The gentlewoman from Texas a few moments ago said that she supported it. If we look at the voting records, she did not. She voted against it.

Mr. SHAW. No, I will not, Mr. Speaker. But I would like to give her the good news, that since welfare reform, since 1995, in the State of Texas the welfare rolls are down 24 percent. That is unheard of. It is unprecedented in the history of this country. Welfare reform has done more for the poor, the needy, than any piece of legislation that has ever come out of this Congress. And let there be no mistake about it. Those figures are out there and they are nationwide. Nationwide. It has been a tremendous success. When I stood here a year ago I said there was still much work to be done. There were corrections to be made. I want to do away with some of the rhetoric and some of the misinformation that has been on this floor today. We do not provide or allow for in this bill any discrimination about people coming off of welfare. On unemployment, the people that are going into the private sector, they have all of the protection that any of the workers in this country have. Those that are working for their benefits, they have the protection against discrimination. However, there are a few protections they do not have. When their benefits run out, they cannot start collecting unemployment compensation. They do not have the FICA contributions. Those are things that there is disagreement in this conference about. I recognize that, but I must say to the Speaker and to my colleagues that once they get into the private sector, there is no difference between them and any other worker.

Mr. SHAW. No, I will not. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Chair to admonish the gentlewoman from Texas not to interrupt me.