E. Shaw

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to convey the sad message of the death of a great American, Margaret S. Benedikt. Widowed in the 1950's with a dependent child, Peggy Benedikt submersed herself learning all there was to investment and construction. Her daughter remembers awaking late at night to find her mother reading and was amazed at her mother's extraordinary ability to retain what she read. Peggy moved to south Florida in the 1960's and established what would become a very successful construction and development company. Knowledgeable in all areas of the construction business, she felt equally at home donning a hard hat on the building site or dressed for presentations in the sales office. As her successes grew, Peggy Benedikt was generous with both her time and her money in supporting a wide variety of organizations in her adopted hometown, Fort Lauderdale, FL. She touched many in the community through her efforts with such diverse groups as Kids in Distress, the Opera Guild, the Humane Society, the American Cancer Association, and the Freedoms Foundation. Margaret S. Benedikt loved Republican politics but she stands as a symbol for Democrats and Republicans alike. Through her actions, she taught all of us that we should stand tight for what we believe in. If there are politics in heaven, Peggy is already in the thick of it. Margaret S. Benedikt was a great lady and a good friend. Peggy, we love you. We'll miss you.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 202, I was recorded as a ``no'' which should have been a ``yes.'' I would like to think that the electronic equipment may have malfunctioned, but having been up all night with the tax-writing committee, I would have to assume that the malfunction was with me. I ask that the Record show my intention and desire to vote ``yes'' as a cosponsor of the flag-burning amendment to the Constitution.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to welcome Rear Adm. Norman T. Saunders to south Florida as the new Commander of the Seventh Coast Guard District and Maritime Defense Command Seven. Admiral Saunders, in his 30 plus years of service, has represented the U.S. Coast Guard with distinction. Before joining the Seventh District, Admiral Saunders served as chief in the Office of Law Enforcement and Defense Operations. In this capacity, Admiral Saunders directed several Coast Guard programs including enforcement of laws and treaties, operational and military readiness, intelligence, and investigative and security activities. The success of these programs is a testament to the leadership of Admiral Saunders. Admiral Saunders is the recipient of numerous decorations including two awards of the Legion of Merit, the Bronze Star Medal with Combat ``V'', two awards of the Coast Guard Commendation Medal, the Navy Commendation Medal with Combat ``V'', and the Coast Guard Achievement Medal. Mr. Speaker, the Seventh District, which encompasses 1.8 million square miles in the Atlantic Ocean and Caribbean Sea, plays a vital role in deterring illegal narcotics from entering our streets and communities. Keeping illegal narcotics out of the hands of our youth is one of the many difficult challenges the Coast Guard and the Seventh District face everyday. In addition, the Seventh keeps illegal immigrants from entering the United States. Since 1992, over 43,000 Cuban and 58,000 Haitian migrants have been interdicted by the Seventh. Whether it's fighting the war on drugs or illegal migrant interdictions, I am certain Admiral Saunders will continue the great work of the Seventh District in keeping our shores and waterways clear of any potential dangers. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Florida congressional delegation, I welcome Admiral Saunders and his wife Chris to south Florida and urge my colleagues to pay tribute to a man who continues to serve his country with honor.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me this time, and I am pleased to join with the gentleman from Florida, the gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen] and even the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Kennedy] as a cosponsor of this amendment which I think is very much needed to bridge the time from August 22 when the welfare reform bill, as it applies to legal immigrants, is going to go into effect until the first of the year to give us the time to work out a reasonable solution. Mr. Chairman, I think a history lesson is necessary here. Right now, 51 percent of the moneys that we spend on the elderly in SSI goes to noncitizens. We have found that the payment to noncitizens is growing at 10 times the rate that it is growing for citizens. Now that is not to say that we need to pull the rug out from under people who are already here, and that message is out there, and that message has been heard, and we are going to solve that problem as part of the budget negotiations and reconciliation that we will be going through in the month of June. There is nobody in this House that wants to see people who have absolutely no place to turn to be dumped out on the streets, and we are not going to allow that to happen. But also there is nobody in this House that I think really wants to continue to use SSI as a pension system for noncitizens. It was never designed that way, and if that is what we are going to do, then we should face that as a separate pension system that we would have to take a look at. But I do not believe that the American people would want to do that. Mr. Chairman, this is the right solution. We are doing the right thing, and we will continue to do the right thing. We will be finetuning this legislation. I have said all along, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Levin] who is my ranking member on the Committee on Ways and Means knows that we have been working for a solution even before the White House and the budgeteers came in and tried to strike their deal in putting together a bill. So I think we need to keep the rhetoric down, I think we need to work together to solve this problem. This is certainly the interim solution. I support this amendment, and I am very pleased to have my name associated with it. I would also like very much to compliment my colleagues, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart], the gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen], the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek], and the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Kennedy] for being part of the sponsorship of this most important amendment. I think it will receive the overwhelming support of the House, and I would hope that it would pass and we can go on to the next phase of working these problems out for legal citizens, legal noncitizens, excuse me, legal noncitizens who find themselves in a tough spot here in this country and were here on August 22, 1996 when this bill was passed and signed into law by the President.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I would like to tell the gentleman that legal immigrants who serve in the military were never, never excluded from any welfare benefits, and they were specifically included.

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

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will calm down, I am a cosponsor with him on this particular amendment. Now if he wants to try running off votes, then that is the way to handle it, but I will explain to the gentleman that we are packaging a deal that is going to take care of all of those that were here on August 22. So if the gentleman would calm down.

Mr. SHAW

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

Mr. SHAW. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman, the SSI rolls among noncitizens was escalating at roughly 10 times the speed it was for citizens. I would also tell the gentleman that of money spent on the elderly, over 51 percent was being spent on noncitizens. I would also tell the gentleman that we have reached an accommodation on SSI, and it is my intention to put before my committee a grandfather provision which will be brought to the floor as part of the budget agreement, as the implementation of the budget agreement, that will grandfather in all of those that were here on August 22, 1996. So from that standpoint, we are solving the problem of both the escalating nature of SSI for noncitizens, which was totally out of control, and we are then showing compassion for the people that were here.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I had not intended to speak on this particular bill until I saw my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts, putting forth some information with regard to the welfare reform bill. I might tell the gentleman that the welfare reform bill has probably been the most single successful piece of legislation that has passed this Congress in decades. Thousands of people, hundreds of thousands of people, are leaving the welfare rolls. Unfortunately, so many of our liberal legislators could not really see that these people had a self- worth, and really all they needed was a little bit of a shove and incentive to go out and do the right thing, and to find a job. We have found that nowhere in our history have we seen the rolls fall as they have, no matter what the prosperity, as they have over the last year and a half. It is absolutely phenomenal. He says the limitation has not gone into effect. People know that the limitation is in effect in many of the States who are far ahead of the curve. His own State of Massachusetts, as well as Wisconsin and Michigan and Indiana, Delaware, these States have been very progressive in welfare reform, and their rolls, the people on welfare, have dropped considerably. Mr. Chairman, I would say to have faith in the poor of this country. Just because somebody is poor does not mean that that person is not out there looking for a job. The question is, is welfare reform working. Of course it is working. I do not see how anybody can stand in this Chamber and say it is not working, because it is. I would say to my friend, have more faith in the poor of this country. Just because someone is poor does not mean that they do not care about their family, they do not care about their future, and there are so many people out there that are finding that there is a real future out there. They can share in the American dream.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1463, the Trade Agencies Authorization Act. While this bill contains many worthy provisions, this legislation is especially deserving of support because it authorizes the resources necessary for the Customs Service to interdict the flow of illegal drugs into this country. As a Member of Congress from south Florida, I can attest that in my home State, the fight to keep illegal drugs from reaching our streets is an ongoing, daily battle, which we are losing. Mr. Speaker, there are three main reasons why the Customs Service's interdiction efforts must be bolstered, and especially in south Florida. First, in the past few years, Congress and the administration have poured resources into such interdiction efforts as Operation Hardline along the Mexican border, and Operation Gateway in Puerto Rico. These operations did help stem the flow of illegal drugs into those areas. However, these operations had one unintended side effect: Drug traffickers began to avoid those areas, and redirected their smuggling efforts toward another major gateway of drugs into our country, south Florida. Second, Customs agents in south Florida do not have the resources they need to effectively engage drug traffickers. Right now, smugglers' boats can outrun the older Customs Service vessels patrolling the waters off of Dade and Broward Counties. Simply put, Customs needs better and faster boats to combat this threat. Finally, the drug lords already have a distribution network in place in south Florida, which greatly eases the distribution of their deadly product. And with 2,276 miles of coastline, along with countless inlets, coves, and tiny keys, the topography of Florida makes it attractive to drug smugglers. For these reasons, during markup in the Ways and Means Committee of this bill, I offered an amendment that would redirect $10 million in the Customs Service budget toward interdicting drugs. My amendment transfers $5 million from the commercial account of the Customs Service budget equally per year to the noncommercial account, and the air and marine account. My amendment was enthusiastically supported by Mr. Rangel, and passed the Committee by voice vote. Furthermore, contained in the report accompanying H.R. 1463 is language making Customs aware that the purpose of my amendment is to shift funds toward rebuilding the marine interdiction program in south Florida, and to hire more special agents and intelligence officers dedicated to counternarcotics and money laundering. If the funds authorized in my amendment are fully appropriated and properly allocated, the Customs Service marine program in south Florida could return to its 1993 level--the year President Clinton took office. Mr. Speaker, this reallocation of funds sends a strong message to the Customs Service that Congress wants a greater focus on interdicting illegal drugs, especially in south Florida. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1463.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today, along with Mr. Ramstad and Mr. Stark and a broad group of my colleagues from the Ways and Means Committee from both sides of the aisle, to introduce this bill to extend structured settlements under section 130 of the Internal Revenue Code to workers' compensation. I am a great believer in structured settlements. Structured settlements have been widely used in the tort area for many years to compensate tort victims who have suffered serious, long-term, often profoundly disabling injuries. A structured settlement provides the badly injured tort victim with important financial protections. Under a structured settlement, the injured person receives damages in the form of a stream of periodic payments tailored to his or her specific future medical and basic living needs from a well-capitalized financial institution that assumes the liability from the defendant and funds the obligation with an annuity or U.S. Treasury obligations. Congress has adopted a series of special Internal Revenue Code rules in sections 130 and 104 to promote the use of structured settlements. Extending these code section 130 structured settlement rules to the workers' compensation area would provide crucial financial security to workers who have suffered serious, long-term physical injuries. A seriously and permanently disabled worker who is to receive a stream of workers' compensation payments over the next 20 or 30 years has the same very real concerns as the tort victim over relying on the uncertain financial prospects of a self-insured employer which may no longer be in business a decade from now or a compensation carrier that is weak and threatens to become more so in the future. In some States structured settlements also would provide a means of resolving workers' compensation disputes that otherwise would be settled with a lump sum that could be prematurely dissipated by the injured worker. Thus, extending the structured settlement tax rules to workers' compensation is fully consistent with the original purpose of code section 130 and merely adds a parallel class of physical injuries to that already covered by the statute. The use of structured settlements in workers' compensation would be subject to the oversight of the States workers' compensation referee who would have to approve each section 130 structured settlement on a case-by-case basis as being in the best interest of the injured worker. The Treasury Department has testified before the Ways and Means Committee in the last Congress that Treasury does not oppose this proposal, reasoning that ``[t]here appears to be no policy justification, apart from revenue considerations, for allowing less favorable tax treatment for work-related physical injury claims than other physical injury claims.'' The Joint Tax Committee estimated in the last Congress that the proposal would cost a total of only $11 million over 5 years. We look forward to consideration of this important legislation at the earliest possible opportunity.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, people who are observing this meeting today probably think they have the wrong parliamentary body when they see the great agreement that this House has risen to by unanimously supporting this and by working out the various amendments. This did not come by happenstance, I would like to say, however. It came from very close work from the Democrat and the Republican side of the aisle, with the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Camp] taking the reins for the Republican side and the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly] the Democrat side. It shows, I think, when you find that there is a problem out there and you decide that we are not going to be running down the road on a partisan horse trying to press our will upon each other, what we can do. It also, I think, shows the tremendous amount of good staff work that we have had going into this bill. I would like to compliment the staffs on both sides of the aisle. I would particularly like to point out Dr. Cassie Bevan for the tremendous work that she has done on this bill. She has a reputation of herself, a well-deserved reputation. She has done many writings and is recognized as an expert on this particular subject nationwide. We are very fortunate, I think, to have staff with particularly background information. We have seen this with other bills that have been passed, and I recognize other members of the staff on both sides of the aisle in being able to bring bills to the floor, being able to dig through the process and be sure that what we pass here is a good product, but this particularly with the Camp-Kennelly bill. We are going to be able to pass a bill today that is really going to help the most fragile among us, and those are the kids that are lingering in foster care, which is a national tragedy. Again, we have 500,000 children across this country who are hungering for a home and a life-style and some structure in their life. This is a tremendous step forward, and I think that it is one of the finest hours of this Congress. I compliment all of the people who were involved in putting this bill together, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, before the gentleman withdraws his amendment, I want to compliment the gentleman from Kansas for a most thoughtful amendment and really addressing the subject which is the heart of this bill. That is, how long are we going to allow the children to stay in foster care? I would point out to the House that there is report language in the bill that I feel will pretty much accomplish what the gentleman from Kansas is after. As chairman of the subcommittee, we will be monitoring this whole matter very, very closely. We are going to see that the intent of this bill is met and that we are, indeed, getting these kids out of foster care and into an adoptive setting and into permanent homes. Again, I compliment the gentleman for bringing this to the attention of the House. I think it underscores what we are trying to do.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Camp], whose name appears first on this bill.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, there is one technical change in the Camp-Kennelly bill that was reported by the committee, and I thought it my duty to come to the floor and briefly explain this under the rule. This change simply removes language that was inadvertently included in the committee bill, that appropriated money for adoption incentive payments, and substitutes language that authorizes spending on the payments. Because the incentive payments are so important to increasing adoptions, and because this provision actually saves taxpayers' dollars, both the Committee on the Budget and the Committee on Appropriations graciously agreed to help us write language that would, if appropriations are made in any year, adjust both the budget resolution and the statutory budget caps to accommodate the additional spending. Thus, the amended bill does not appropriate money, but the new provision does make it easy for the appropriators to provide the money for the adoption incentive payments. Giving States the incentive payments of $4,000 for each additional adoption will save both State and Federal tax dollars. I want to personally thank the chairman and the staffs of the Committee on the Budget and the Committee on Appropriations for their help with this important provision. I would also like to tell the Members of the House, in responding to some of the comments made by our colleague, the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly] one of the authors of this bill, that we on this side, even though this is an open rule, recognize the bipartisan effort that went into building this bill and also recognize the tremendous importance and impact this bill is going to have upon some of the most fragile among us, and that is unadopted kids that are lingering in foster care. Because of that, Mr. Speaker, we are trying to work out compromises on many of the amendments that are being offered or contemplated to be offered, to see if we might reach a bipartisan solution on acceptance of those amendments without putting the House to votes that could possibly tilt the scales away from the bipartisan bill that has been so carefully crafted by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Camp], and the gentlewoman from Connecticut. Because of that, I would anticipate that if there are any amendments in dispute, that the committee would, in all probability, object to those amendments. Even though we might see that they have merit that should require us to consider them, and even though we personally might think it might be a better bill, we feel the bipartisanship that has been brought to this bill to the floor today should survive the day and that we should report out a bill that should get the unanimous support of the entire House.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Kelly].

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. SHAW asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton].

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Camp], the prime sponsor of the bill, and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to yield time.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, the Camp-Kennelly bill that we bring to the floor today is of vital importance to many thousands of the Nation's most unfortunate children. These children are the abused, the neglected, the abandoned. To take these children out of harm's way, State government removes these children from their families and places them in foster care. Five hundred thousand. That is right, one-half of 1 million. That is how many children are languishing in foster care as we debate this bill today. The major goal of Federal and State policy must remain what it has been since the passage of the vital Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, and that is to move these children to permanent placements as quickly as possible. But today there is a new consensus throughout the Nation: Too many children are in foster care because too few children are adopted. The bill we debate today will change that. I have no doubt that if we pass this bill, within 5 years the number of adoptions in the United States will increase substantially and the number of children languishing in foster care will at last decline. This bill does three big things to promote adoption: First, Federal statutes now put too much emphasis on providing all kinds of services to rehabilitate troubled families. Let me be clear about this. I firmly believe that services for troubled families are important. Nothing is more important to children than their families. Thus, if their family has problems, government could and should reach out a helping hand. But not ten hands. If families will not or cannot change within a reasonable period of time, we must, in the interest of the children, be willing to terminate parental rights and move expeditiously toward adoption. So the big thing this bill does is to push the pendulum of government concern back in the direction of the children. We do this by allowing States to define what we call aggravated circumstances that allow them to dispense with services for the family and get on with the business of finding an adoptive home for the child. In the case of parents who have murdered another child or lost custody of other children, States are required to dispense with the services for the family and to move quickly to terminate parental rights and get the child adopted. The second big thing this bill does is require States to move to terminate parental rights and find an adoptive family if children under 10 have been in foster care for 18 of the past 24 months. There is at present no national consensus on the maximum time children should spend in foster care. As a result, some States keep children in foster care for an average of 3 years. The average stay in foster care across all States is around 2 years. Think of that: 2 years, 24 months, 104 weeks, 730 days. For a 4-year- old child, that is half of his or her life. This must stop. Camp- Kennelly will take us a giant step toward creating a national understanding that if families cannot be rehabilitated within 18 months, the State must move to adoption. These first two provisions of this bill place administrative requirements on the States, but the third big provision of this bill takes a different approach. Camp-Kennelly will reward States for increasing adoptions. If we want more of something, we simply subsidize it. So let us pay States to do the right thing. Instead of just subsidizing foster care, as we do now, Camp-Kennelly will pay the States $4,000 for every child adopted above the prior year's levels. Will this approach work? Both the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget say it will. Not only will the provision increase the number of adoptions, but it will actually save money. Members of Congress will seldom have the opportunity to vote for a bill that both does the right thing for children and saves taxpayers dollars at the same time. I am quite proud of this bill, and I am proud of my subcommittee and the sponsors who have put this bill together. It will help children. It will increase adoption. It will improve the reputation of government for effectiveness and efficiency, and it will save the taxpayers money. I would like to share with the Congress part of the testimony that was given before my subcommittee. A woman caseworker who had been involved in many, many adoptions told us of the first words that a child had after meeting her new parents, and this is a child who was less than 3 years old, a 2-year-old child. The first words she said in meeting her new adoptive parents were ``Where have you been?'' ``Where have you been?'' Can any of us imagine those words coming out of a 2-year-old child thirsting for a family? I say to the Congress, ``Where have you been?'' It is time for us to pass this bill, and I urge all the Members to vote ``yes'' on this vital piece of legislation. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment, but I want to address this question to the author of the amendment: As I understand the printed amendment, the typed amendment has been modified to provide that this is at the option of the State; is that correct?

Mr. SHAW. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I bring that up only because the House now has rulings pertaining to unfunded mandates. And even though I think this is a very good amendment, and one that adds to the bill, I just wanted to be sure that we did not fall into that trap. I compliment the gentlewoman for her amendment and urge its support.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to rise in support of H.R. 1048, the Welfare Reform Technical Corrections Act of 1997. Last year Congress passed and the President signed a new welfare law that substantially reformed the Nation's welfare policy, including Federal programs providing cash welfare, child care, child support and disability payments and welfare for noncitizens. That comprehensive legislation also included a provision requiring the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Commissioner of Social Security to submit to Congress a detailed proposal for making technical corrections and conforming amendments to this law. The goal was to produce legislation that would facilitate the implementation of the new national welfare reform policy in the simplest, most sensible way. Thus we have the bill before us today. My motion also includes a minor change since the Committee on Ways and Means acted. This change is necessary to address the concerns of appropriations and budget committees with section 214 of the bill regarding payments to the prisoners. I understand that the minority is fully advised of this amendment and has no objection to that. There is little in this bill that is flashy or that rises above the truly technical. In fact, most changes would either correct or clarify the law by changing cross-references or correcting grammatical or format errors. Nonetheless, this is an important legislative product for several reasons: First, it is the result of cooperation between the administration, the Congress and the States. Most provisions of this bill stem from requests made by the administration and the States who are charged with swiftly and efficiently implementing the new welfare programs in accordance with new Federal law. Second, this bill is thoroughly bipartisan. One of the basic ground rules used in crafting this bill is that if any side, House Republicans, House Democrats, Senate Republicans, Senate Democrats or the Clinton administration, objected to a provision, it would not be included in this bill. As a result, both the subcommittee and the full committee voted in favor of this legislation unanimously. I suspect that we will have a similar vote here on the floor today. Finally, this effort shows that all sides want to make welfare reform work. Either side could have derailed the process at any time along the way, and this so-far-friendly process could still be halted in the Senate. But for today the interests of making the new law work have won out over partisanship and grandstanding. Mr. Speaker, let me say a word about what is not in this bill, and it is not in this bill by design. This bill is not a vehicle to reopen the debate over fundamental welfare reform changes. These issues are settled, and all parties crafting this legislation accepted that fact at least for the moment. This legislation makes many changes that will allow welfare reform to work better, which is everybody's goal. While the changes made here are quite minor, this bill represents Congress at its best, fostering cooperation with the States, working in a bipartisan fashion and producing changes that make Government more efficient in its services to the people that we all serve. I urge all Members to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.