E. Shaw

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 4944.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support, along with my colleagues, of this bill, H.R. 4944, the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 2006. The bill amends a Haphazard Tariff Schedule, HTS, of the United States, to cut certain rates of duty on a variety of products and to make technical amendments to trade law. The body typically considers such a miscellaneous trade bill during every Congress; and while the practice may be routine and have minimal costs, these provisions do make vital changes that are important to our businesses, farmers, workers, retailers and, of course, our consumers. This year, in addition to cutting tariffs, there is a provision that clamps down on the illegal import of tobacco products by clarifying certain laws and increasing coordination between the U.S. Customs and statewide enforcement officials. Smuggling is a problem that affects every State, especially those with significant ports such as Florida, and cuts into the States and Federal tax and duty collection. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4944 enjoys broad and bipartisan support. I would like to recognize the hard work of the members and staff of both parties for their hard work on this legislation. Each provision included in this legislation has been thoroughly vetted for support, and it has been made public record for some time. The legislation we now consider raises no objection from either party and has to be determined to be administratable upon enactment.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) who is a very active Member of the Congress with regard to our relationship with the Ukraine. (Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart), a member of the Rules Committee, a Member who knows what it is to lose freedom and then regain it.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I would like to first of all associate myself with the remarks from the gentleman from Maryland as well as the gentleman from California. I think they expressed very well, as did the other speakers from the majority side, the feeling of the Congress with regard to this resolution. I rise in very strong support of H.R. 1053 which would grant permanent normal trade relations to the products of the Ukraine. Members of the House have the opportunity to show their support for the important economic and democratic reforms underway by Ukraine by affirming their support to the PNTR status. As chairman of the Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee, I routinely observe the tremendous benefits that free and fair trade can have on both countries involved. In fact, many times the economic benefit of trade is a carrot that is held out to encourage movements by countries towards a free and open society. To most effectively continue advocating that countries make these reforms, we must take steps to recognize and reward those efforts to demonstrate the benefits of those actions. In addition to rising in support of this legislation, I applaud the negotiations on both sides for their work on the bilateral market access agreement reached between the United States and Ukraine on March 6, 2006, just 2 days ago. In particular, I commend the strong protections for intellectual property rights contained in the agreement. For example, the Ukraine has agreed to provide 5 years of data protection for pharmaceuticals and 10 years of data protection for agriculture chemicals. I applaud both the Ukraine and the United States Trade Representative, Mr. Portman, for this and I continue to urge the United States Trade Representative to press for intellectual property rights in future agreements, particularly in the discussions with Russia. Mr. Speaker, Ukraine has made strong commitments in this and many other areas. In addition, the country has made tremendous economic and democratic strides. All of us were thrilled to watch actually on television the Orange Revolution and watch it go forward and watch the freedom, the human spirit, rise up in the Ukraine and come to bring them where they are today. Because of this and other matters, I urge my colleagues to support permanent and normal trade relations for the Ukraine and vote in favor of this important bill, H.R. 1053.

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

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

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my support of the resolution condemning Iran for violating its nonproliferation obligations and expressing support for efforts to report them to the United Nations Security Council. Early last month, the Iranian regime announced that it planned to restart its nuclear research program. This was in clear violation of a 2004 agreement that had been reached with Britain, France and Germany to suspend uranium enrichment operations. Iran claims that the program is aimed at generating electricity, but I think the United States and the world know better. In fact, the International Atomic Energy Agency has already voted to report Iran to the U.N. Security Council. The president of the Iranian regime, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has also caused concern in the United States and Europe with his confrontational statements denying the Holocaust happened and stating his desire to annihilate Israel. The United States fully expects the Security Council to add its weight to the IAEA's calls for Iran to return to the 2004 agreement, suspend all enrichment and reprocessing activity, cooperate fully with the IAEA and return to negotiations with Great Britain, France and Germany. Only then will the Iranian regime restore any confidence that it is in fact, not seeking nuclear weapons under the guise of an ``electricity program.'' Mr. Speaker, with their continued defiance it's imperative that the United Nations act quickly. We must send a clear message to the Iranian regime that he world will not permit them to obtain nuclear weapons.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, the Palestinian elections last month provided the Palestinian Authority an incredible opportunity to take the necessary step in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. However, Hamas continues to incite violence and advocate for the destruction of Israel. The resolution before us today states that the United States will not support sending tax dollars in the form of aid to a terrorist government. This resolution sends the message that America does not do business with a government that calls for the total destruction of one of our allies. Hamas, for its part, continues to support the killing of Israeli civilians and denies the legitimacy of the state of Israel. Hamas has a choice, they can renounce violence, govern and work towards peace, or they can choose violence and the consequences that follow. Last fall, I sent a letter to President Abbas calling on him to institute clear criteria for participation in Palestinian elections. Groups or individuals such as Hamas who support violence, racism, intolerance and hatred should have no right to participate in democratic elections. Mr. Speaker, I do not see President Abbas working towards peace. This resolution reiterates that America does not deal with terrorists. I urge Members to support this resolution.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the extraordinary life of Father Timothy Hannon, Pastor of St. Anthony Catholic Church in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, who passed away on November 2, 2005. Timothy Hannon was born the eldest of eight children in County Clare, Ireland. He was ordained into the priesthood in 1962 and began his life-long dedication of service and devotion to the Catholic Church under the Archdiocese of Miami. He served as Associate Pastor at St. Anthony Parish in Fort Lauderdale, Florida from 1962 to 1964, Associate Pastor at Nativity Parish in Hollywood, Florida from 1964 to 1968 and as associate Pastor at St. Vincent Ferrer Parish in Delray Beach, Florida from 1968 to 1971. He then founded St. Malachy in Tamarac, Florida in 1971 and remained there as Pastor until 1980. He dedicated the next 25 years, where his vocation began, at St. Anthony. Under his leadership St. Anthony School and Parish, the oldest in Broward County, flourished. He worked to ensure that students were given the best Catholic education possible and parishioners a welcoming place of worship. He encouraged all those with whom he came into contact to grow in mind, body, and spirit. He will be remembered for his gentle manner and quiet intellect. Father Hannon is survived by his four brothers, Patrick, Michael, James, and Flan, and two sisters, Ann and Mary, all of whom live in Ireland. His brother John, also a priest, was killed by insurgents while serving last year in Nigeria. Mr. Speaker, Father Hannon served as a role model, a spiritual leader, a guidance councilor, and an educator to so many in the St. Anthony family and beyond. Those that knew him were blessed by his friendship and his many accomplishments will have a lasting impression in the community.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Madam Speaker, with Christmas just around the corner, the latest economic indicators are welcome gifts to the American people. In the last 5 years, this country has endured terrorist attacks, stock market decline and natural disasters. Yet despite all of this, the latest numbers show that our economy is strong and it is getting stronger. Just in time for holiday travel, gas prices continue to decline and are down nearly 23 cents in the last 4 weeks. Sales of new homes rose 13 percent in October, which was the largest monthly gain in 12 years. Finally, nearly 4.5 million jobs have been added in the last 2\1/2\ years. We have even seen an impressive 200,000 jobs per month. And, State and local revenue has risen 7.2 percent. In fact, in my State of Florida, we expect a surplus of more than $3 billion. These positive numbers are the result of Republicans' pro-growth economic policies. The Democrats, however, believe that a good gift is to continue to tax and spend. Madam Speaker, right now we have a strong, vibrant economy. Republicans remain committed to these policies that will endure and all Americans can realize the American dream and have a merry, merry Christmas.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding me this time. I have been listening to the debate here on the floor. I have yet to hear anybody from the other side say that the reduction in capital gains does not stimulate the economy or say that any of these items are bad for the economy. All we have heard from the other side is class warfare, who is getting what. Well, I can tell you who is getting what, and we can go down this thing. My folks in Florida want to be able to deduct State and local sales taxes. What is wrong with that? People in New York, they can deduct their income tax. So why can Floridians not deduct their sales tax and other States? Research and experiment tax credit, who can be against that? It keeps us sharp and competitive in the world market. Above-the-line deduction for higher education expenses. Are we against allowing people to deduct their education expenses? How about an above-the-line deduction for out-of-pocket teacher classroom expenses, are you against that? All we are hearing about is, well, why are you doing it for capital gains and how this is going to affect the top people, the people right at the top of the income level. I would like to point out who is going to benefit from the reduced rate on dividends. Nearly 60 percent of the Americans receiving capital gains or dividend income have incomes of less than $100,000; and believe me, that is not millionaires, and you can even take it down to $50,000 and find one in five will benefit from the capital gains deduction because of incomes under $50,000. Those are not millionaires, but let us get down to talk about why we are doing it now. If we were to allow the capital gains rate to expire and jump back up and increase, what we are simply doing is pushing back the increase so they do not increase. This is very important, and it is important for capital formation. It is important for planning your life and future and what you are going to be able to do; and also, I think that it is just good sense. It is good for our economy. Our economy has grown under this structure, and let us let the economy continue to grow.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Very briefly, since the tax rate on capital gains and dividends was reduced in May of 2003, the economy has grown at an average rate of 4.1 percent; 4.4 million new jobs have been created; government tax receipts have increased 10 percent annually. Now we are coming to a situation in 2008 where the capital gains rate is going to go up to 20 percent; dividends go back to ordinary income. What effect is this going to have on the economy to all of the sudden have that increase that we are looking at? The question has been, and I think it has been raised, as to what is the hurry, why do it. We want them to be able to have a tax rate that people can count on, one that people can look into the future as far as they could. I would like to extend it even further than that, but under reconciliation we are limited to the budget window. I think this is a good bill. I ask all the Members to reject the substitute and support the base bill.

Mr. SHAW

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

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I want to add another provision there, that over the last 3 years, hourly wages have increased in the United States by 8 percent. So a lot of this stuff we have heard is absolutely false.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) who I referred to in my opening remarks, a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

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 and include extraneous material on the subject of the bill just under consideration.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill and ask not only that we pass this bill by a large majority, which I believe we will, but also that we commit ourselves to doing away with the entire realm of the alternative minimum tax. I think of all the tax reform that is necessary for this body to focus on next year, the removal of the alternative minimum tax, the ``stealth tax,'' as has been quite correctly labeled here today, should be done away with. Even if we have to start folding the impact into the rates, we need to get rid of the alternative minimum tax. But I want to comment for a moment on the rhetoric we are hearing from the other side. They are scolding us. They are complaining, when this bill is a bill that they are going to support. Has this House come to that, that they cannot even agree with us when they agree with us? Come on, lighten up. Let's get together and work on things that we agree on.

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

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I would like to just tell the gentleman he is misinterpreting my remarks. I did not say just throw it into the deficit, because he knows and I know that doing away with the alternative minimum tax is a big revenue hit on the Federal Government and we are going to have to find a way to pay for that. We would have done this a long time ago if it was not such a huge figure. All I am doing is trying to reach out to you, who agree that the alternative minimum tax should be done away with permanently, and say let us work together and figure out a way to do it and do something. We used to do things in a bipartisan way. Why can we not do it again?