E. Shaw

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Michigan for his tremendous work and cooperation. This could have developed into a circus, knowing of some of the controversies within welfare reform, but the Members all chose to be very professional and see this go through and go through in a very smooth way. I would also like to thank the staff of the administration as well as the minority and the majority here in the House. To craft a technical corrections bill of this size is quite a job, and quite a laborious job to come through the legislation and find things that need adjustment, fine-tuning and correction, and take care of that. For that I am very appreciative to all of our staffs for having done so. I also appreciate the cooperation we received from the Committee on Education and the Workforce, from the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], and the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump], of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, in cooperating in their jurisdiction within this bill. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record at this time a letter from the gentleman from Pennsylvania and the gentleman from Arizona as well. Committee on Education and the Workforce, Washington, DC, April 25, 1997. Hon. Newt Gingrich, Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Speaker: I am writing regarding H.R. 1048, the Welfare Reform Technical Corrections Act of 1997 and have no objection to this bill being scheduled for consideration. The bill was introduced by Rep. Clay Shaw and was referred additionally to the Committee on Education and the Workforce. The Committee on Ways and Means ordered the bill favorably reported on April 23, 1997. While the bill includes amendments that affect programs within the jurisdiction of this Committee, specifically the Mandatory Work Requirements of Title I and the Child Care Provisions of Title VI, I do not intend to call a full Committee meeting to consider this bill; however, the Committee does hold an interest in preserving its jurisdiction with respect to issues raised in the bill and its jurisdictional prerogatives in future legislation should the provisions of this bill be considered in a conference with the Senate. Additionally, I would indicate that I am currently working with Chairman Archer to include a technical amendment to the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), during Floor consideration; this amendment is solely within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. I thank you for your attention to this matter and look forward to swift passage of H.R. 1048. Sincerely, Bill Goodling, Chairman.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1048) to make technical amendments relating to the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, as amended.

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 therein extraneous material on H.R. 1048.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay].

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing legislation that addresses a problem developing in the resort and vacation industry, an industry of great importance to my home State of Florida and many other States in this country. Without corrective legislation, I fear the 1.7 million timeshare owners in the United States will ultimately bear an unfair Federal tax burden on their timeshare homeowners associations, simply because these associations complied with State law and sound business practices. The issue involves the Federal income tax treatment of timeshare homeowners associations. Since the 1970's, timeshare homeowners associations have applied the same tax principles used by condominium associations that do not elect or do not qualify for tax-exempt status under section 528 of the Internal Revenue Code. An IRS Technical Advice Memorandum (TAM 9539001), however, has concluded that a timeshare homeowners association cannot use the same tax treatment relied on by condominium associations in determining taxable income. As a result, it appears the IRS is poised to adopt burdensome standards for timeshare associations that could result in the inclusion of all regular member assessments in income, even assessments intended for capital reserve expenditures that are held in trust for future use. Many States, including my State of Florida, require timeshare homeowners associations to maintain capital reserves. I believe it is entirely appropriate for States to require timeshare associations to maintain capital reserves in preparation for future expenditures, such as repairing or replacing a roof or repaving a parking lot. In addition to complying with State law, the timeshare homeowners association practice of maintaining capital reserves represents a sound business practice, one we should encourage, not discourage through punitive Federal tax treatment. The legislation I am introducing today will permit timeshare homeowners associations to elect section 528 of the Internal Revenue Code. Currently, timeshare associations are effectively prohibited from electing section 528 as a result of a residency requirement of that section of the Code. Specifically, Treasury regulations under section 528 require that at least one-half of the units of a housing development must be occupied by the same owner for at least 30 days of the year. Timeshare associations by their very nature, where occupants tend to hold unit ownership for 1 or 2 weeks per year, are unable to meet this residency standard. As a result, timeshare homeowners associations, which are comprised of timeshare owners, are not permitted to elect section 528. Under my proposal, most timeshare homeowners association that elect section 528 would pay higher taxes on their nonexempt income (i.e., investment income) but appropriately would not be taxed on their exempt income (i.e., membership assessments that are expended to maintain and operate property commonly owned and used by members). I believe this is an exceedingly reasonable solution to the current problem and would hope that many of my colleagues would join in cosponsoring this legislation. Mr. Speaker, the timeshare industry has done an outstanding job polishing the professionalism of the industry over the past 10 years and providing a high quality vacation product for Americans across the country. In fact, the industry has developed to a level of popularity and sophistication where 1.7 million Americans now own timeshares in the United States, and nearly 120,000 new buyers purchase a timeshare each year. Further, an impressive $6 billion is spent annually by timeshare owners while vacationing at timeshare resorts in the United States. This level of spending and the continued growth of the industry is creating a broad variety of jobs in affected communities and adding significantly to local tax bases. Mr. Speaker, let my colleagues understand that the strong and sustained growth of the timeshare industry is not a phenomenon indigenous to my State of Florida. The growth of the timeshare industry, measured at 16 percent annually over the past 8 years, is also being enjoyed in many regions across the country, particularly in the States of California, Colorado, North Carolina, Texas, and Arizona. In addition, with 1.7 million timeshare owners, we can rest assured that we all have constituents who will be adversely and unfairly affected by this IRS policy development. To provide Members a sense of the growth of the industry throughout our country, I have included a chart from the publication ``Timeshare Purchasers: Who They Are, Why They Buy, 1995''. This chart links the number of households who own timeshares by State, as well as the penetration rate within each State. It is clear, however, that without corrective legislation, many timeshare homeowners associations will incur Federal tax liabilities simply for complying with State law and following sound business practice. Common sense tells us that timeshare homeowners associations will have little choice but to pass this unfair tax increase on to their timeshare owners in the form of higher assessments. With these thoughts and concerns in mind, I am introducing the Homeowners Association Clarification Act, that will correct this problem and permit timeshare associations to continue to comply with State law on capital reserves and follow sound business practice without incurring Federal tax liabilities on these funds. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this legislation. Homeowners Association Clarification Act of 1997 In March 1997, U.S. Representative E. Clay Shaw introduced the ``Homeowners Association Clarification Act of 1997''. The legislation is intended to resolve an ongoing controversy between the I.R.S. and timeshare homeowners associations, comprising the nation's 1.7 million timeshare owners. Since the early 1970's, timeshare homeowners associations (HOAs) have applied the same tax principles used by condominium associations. Under these long established principles, timeshare HOAs applied annual assessments paid by timeshare owners in excess of annual expenses to offset assessments for future years (so-called ``excess assessments''). Second, assessments allocated to various repair and replacement reserve accounts were considered tax exempt. Reserve funds are dedicated to future capital improvements such as roof repair or replacement and parking lot repavement. The interest earned from reserve accounts have always been considered taxable income. In 1995, the I.R.S. issued a Technical Advise memorandum (TAM) with respect to one timeshare HOA. The TAM took the position that the Revenue ruling relied upon with respect to excess assessments is not applicable to timeshare HOAs. The TAM concluded that timeshare HOAs provide different level of services to their owners (than condominium HOAs) and that owners were not given the option to have the excess assessment returned. In addition, current I.R.S. positions place in great doubt the tax status of additions to capital reserve accounts. While the TAM is directed only to the HOA under audit, the I.R.S. has both maintained and intensified the positions taken in the TAM toward the industry as a whole. Subsequent formal guidance provided by the I.R.S. constructs a costly and burdensome administrative scheme for timeshare HOAs to comply. The Shaw Bill would permit qualifying timeshare HOAs to elect to be treated as tax exempt entities under Section 528 of the Internal Revenue Code. In order to elect Section 528, a timeshare HOA would be required to derive 60% of its income from members and 90% of the revenue of the HOA would be required to be spent to maintain association property. Under Section 528, prepaid and excess assessments and capital reserve accounts would be tax exempt. However, Investment income would not only continue to be taxed, but at higher rates for the overwhelming majority of timeshare HOAs.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, on this day, April 15, I am most reluctant to get up and speak against an amendment which, on its face, appears to be something that we all should support. However, I think it is an amendment that we should not be putting into the Constitution of the United States. The bill before us today does not in any way give the American people any tax relief. What it simply would do is to institutionalize into the U.S. Constitution a provision, an antidemocrat provision, and I do not mean Democrat party, I mean one having to do with democracy; a provision that would say that the minority can run this House. Think about it for a moment. Under this constitutional amendment, 7 percent of the population, through a vote in the Senate, could run the business of the legislative body of this great country of ours. When this came to the floor last time, I voted for it. Since then, I have been giving it a great deal of thought, and that thought has been somewhat around my support of the constitutional amendment that would require us to balance our budget. Mr. Speaker, we should think for a moment when we have a situation where we are putting into the Constitution a provision where 7 percent of the population of this great country can stop legislation. We will have put into position in the Constitution a constitutional amendment that requires the Federal Government to balance its budget, and then we try to put a tax bill on the floor when funds may be desperately needed, not in a time of hostility, but perhaps just needed in order to build up our own forces to compete with a force that is potentially hostile elsewhere in this world. As a leader of the free world and as a leader of this entire world, this country could be brought to its knees by 7 percent of the population. That is absolutely unthinkable to me. As much as I hate to vote against this amendment, and as much respect as I have for the proponents of this amendment and what they are trying to do, and as much as I support them in the efforts of what they are trying to do, this is not the responsible way for this great body to go. It is time that we as Republicans get away from the minority mentality that we seem to be carrying with us in this House. We control this House. We are the party of lower taxes, and as long as we can control this House, we will remain the party of lower taxes, and we will not increase the taxes on the American people. Let us have faith in ourselves; let us have faith in our own party; let us have faith in our willingness and our resolve not to raise taxes on the American people. That is where the vote should be. That is where the limitation should be, at the ballot box, where the American people elect their representatives to send to this Congress.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing H.R. 1150, the Real Estate Investment Trust Simplification Act of 1997 [``REITSA''], a bill to amend portions of the Internal Revenue Code dealing with real estate investment trusts, or REIT's. The legislation responds to the need for simplification in the regulation of the day-to-day operation of REIT's. REITSA is cosponsored by Mr. Matsui, Mr. Crane, Mr. Thomas, Mrs. Johnson, Mr. Houghton, Mr. Herger, Mr. McCrery, Mr. Camp, Mr. Johnson, Ms. Dunn, Mr. Collins, Mr. English, Mr. Ensign, Mr. Weller, Mr. Stark, Mr. Levin, and Mr. Cardin. The Joint Committee on Taxation has determined that REITSA has a negligible effect on Federal fiscal year budget receipts. In 1960, Congress created REIT's to function as the real estate equivalent of the regulated investment company, or mutual fund. As such, they permit small investors to participate in real estate projects that the investors could not undertake individually and with the assistance of experienced management. Over time, the REIT industry has matured into its intended role with the greatest strides made in this decade. This development of the REIT industry is a result of a number of factors. As important as any other were the changes Congress enacted in 1986 to the REIT rules themselves and the tax landscape in general. With respect to the general provisions, throughout the 1980's limited partnerships used the offer of multiple dollars of tax paper losses for each invested dollar to attract investors away from solid investments like REIT's, which seek to provide investors with consistent distributions from economically feasible real estate investments but provide no opportunity to receive a pass-through of tax motivated losses. Accordingly, the elimination of those tax loss loopholes led investors to look for income-producing investment opportunities. Also included in the 1986 tax legislation were important modifications to the REIT provisions of the Code. Among the changes made as part of that modernization of the REIT tax laws (the first in a decade and the most recent comprehensive revision of the REIT laws), the most significant was the change allowing REIT's to directly provide to tenants those services customary in the leasing of real estate as had been permitted to pension plans and other tax-exempt entities engaged in the leasing of real property. Prior to that change, a REIT was required to use an independent contractor to provide those services. These legislative changes and the lack of credit to recapitalize America's real estate produced a suitable environment for the substantial growth in the REIT industry and the fulfillment of Congress' original hopes for the REIT vehicle. From 1990 to present, the industry has grown from a market capitalization of approximately $9 billion to nearly $100 billion. Fueling that growth has been the introduction of some of American's leading real estate companies to the family of long existing, viable REITs. As a result, the majority of today's REIT's are owners of quality, income-producing real estate. Thus, hundreds of thousands of individuals that own REIT shares through direct investment (plus the many more who are interest holders in the growing number of mutual funds or pension funds investing in REIT's) have become participants in the recapitalization of tens of billions of dollars of America's best real estate investments. Likewise, investors in mortgage REIT's have the opportunity to participate in the ever growing market for securitized mortgages, further contributing to the recapitalizaton of quality real estate. The benefits of the growth in the REIT industry were addressed in a 1995 Urban Land Institute White Paper title The REIT Renaissance. That White Paper concluded that ``[f]rom an overall economic standpoint, the real estate industry and the economy should be well served by the expansion of the REIT industry--the broadening of participation in real estate ownership, the investment in market information and research that the public market will bring, and the more timely responsiveness to market signals that will result from better information and market analysis.'' To assist the continued growth of this important industry, H.R. 1150 was developed to address areas in the existing tax regime that present significant, yet unnecessary, barriers to the use of the REIT vehicle. The proposals represent a modernization of the most complex parts of the regulatory structure under which REIT's operate, while leaving intact the basic underlying ownership, income, asset, and distribution tests introduced in the original REIT legislation. The proposals are supported by the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts, the National Realty Committee, the International Council of Shopping Centers, the National Multi-Housing Council, the Building Owners and Managers Association International, the National Association of Industrial & Office Properties, and other national organizations. summary of key provisions of h.r. 1150 A. Title I contains three proposals to remove unnecessary ``traps for the unwary.'' These proposals would address current requirements that are not necessary to satisfy Congressional objectives, that carry a disproportionate penalty for even unintentional oversights, or that are impracticable in today's environment. Title I's overriding intention is not to penalize a REIT's many small investors by stripping the REIT of its tax status as a result of an act that does not violate Congress' underlying intent in creating the REIT vehicle. Section 101. Shareholder Demand Letter. The potential disqualification for a REIT's failure to send shareholder demand letters should be replaced with a reporting penalty. Under present law, regulations require that a REIT send letters to certain shareholders within 30 days of the close of the REIT's taxable year. The letters demand from its shareholders of record, a written statement identifying the ``actual owner'' of the stock. A REIT's failure to comply with the notification requirement may result in a loss of REIT status. The failure to send so-called demand letters may result in the disqualification of a REIT with thousands of shareholders that easily satisfies the substantive test because of a purely technical violation. As a result of disqualification, a REIT would be compelled to pay taxes for all open years, thereby depriving their shareholders of income generated in compliance with all of the REIT rules. Fortunately, the Internal Revenue Service has not enforced any such technical disqualifications and instead has entered into closing agreements with several REITs. The proposal would alleviate the need to enter into such closing agreements on a prospective basis. H.R. 1150 provides that a REIT's failure to comply with the demand letter regulations would not, by itself, disqualify a REIT if it otherwise establishes that it satisfies the substantive ``five or fewer'' ownership rules. But under these circumstances, a $25,000 penalty ($50,000 for intentional violations) would be imposed for any year in which the REIT did not comply with the shareholder demand regulations and the REIT would be required, when requested by the IRS, to send curative demand letters or face an additional penalty equal to the amounts related above. In addition, to protect a REIT that meets the regulations, but is otherwise unable to discover the actual ownership of its shares, the bill provides that a REIT would be deemed to satisfy the ``five or fewer'' share ownership rules if it complies with the demand letter regulations and does not know, or have reason to know, of an actual violation of the ownership rules. Section 102. De Minimus Rule for Tenant Services Income. The uncertainty related to qualifying services for a REIT should be addressed by a reasonable de minimus test. In 1986, Congress modernized the REIT's independent contractor rules to allow them to directly furnish to tenants those services customary in the management of rental property. However, certain problems persist. Under existing law, a REIT's receipt of any amount of revenue as a result of providing an impermissible service to tenants with respect to a property may disqualify all rents received with respect to that property. For example, if a REIT's employee assists a tenant in moving in or out of an apartment complex (a potentially impermissible service), technically the IRS could contend that all the income from the apartment complex is disqualified, even though the REIT received no direct revenue for the provided service. The disqualification of a large property's rent could seriously threaten, or even terminate, the REIT's qualified status. Interestingly, at the same time a REIT could be severely punished for providing services to tenants or their visitors, the REIT rules properly provide that up to 5% of a REIT's gross income may come from providing services to non-tenants. Thus, under present law a REIT is better off providing services to nontenants than providing the same services to tenants. In addition to the potential disqualification of rents, the absence of a de minimus rule requires the REIT to spend significant time and energy in monitoring every action of its employees, and significant dollars in attorney fees to determine whether each potential action is an impermissible service. The uncertainty regarding the permissibility of services also requires the IRS to expend considerable resources in responding to private ruling requests. To lessen the burden of monitoring each REIT employee's every action and to eliminate unnecessary disqualification of tenant rents, H.R. 1150 provides for a de minimus exception. The exception would treat small amounts of revenue resulting from an impermissible service in a manner similar to revenue received from providing services to non-tenants, and protect the classification of rents from the affected property as qualifying REIT income. The de minimus exception is equal to 1% of the gross income from the affected property. The de minimus exception is based on gross income to be consistent with the REIT's income tests, and is set at 1% to reflect an amount large enough to provide the requisite safe harbor (note that it is 1% of the income from an affected property, regardless how small, and not all properties owned by the REIT), yet small enough not to encourage disregard of the independent contractor rule. Because many of the services in question would not result in a direct receipt of gross income, the bill provides a mechanism for establishing the gross income received relative to an impermissible service. The gross income would be deemed at least equal to the direct costs of the service (i.e., labor, cost of goods) multiplied by 150%. For example, if the IRS determined that a REIT's providing wheelchairs at a mall is an impermissible service, the cost of the wheelchairs would be multiplied by 150% to achieve the gross income realized from the impermissible service. If that and any other gross income related to impermissible services provided to tenants of that mall does not exceed 1% of the malls gross income for the year, the impermissible service income would be classified as non-qualifying income. However, rents received from tenants of the mall would not be disqualified. A REIT's actions are still policed under this change. First, if a REIT's gross income from impermissible services exceeds 1% of the gross income from the affected property, that income and the rents from that property would be disqualified as under current law. Second, as previously noted, a REIT's gross income from non-qualifying source is limited to 5% of total gross income. Accordingly, gross income from impermissible sources that does not exceed the 1% threshold would be included in that small basket, thereby placing a second check on the REIT's activities. Section 103. Attribution Rules Applicable To Tenant Ownership. Unintended double attribution under section 318 should be minimized, while preserving the intended purpose of the attribution rule. The attribution rules of section 318 are interjected to ensure that a REIT does not receive rents from a 10% or more related party, in which case the rents are deemed disqualified income for the REIT gross income tests. While the intention of that rule is proper, a quirk in the application of section 318 to REITs as called for under section 856(d)(2) may result in the disqualification of a REIT's rents when no actual direct or indirect relationship exists between the REIT and tenant. Under section 318(a)(3)(A), stock owned directly or indirectly, by a partner is considered owned by the partnership. In addition, under section 318(a)(3)(C), a corporation is considered as owning stock that is owned, directly or indirectly, by or for a person who also owns more than 10% (in the case of REITs) of the stock in such corporation. Those attribution rules may create an unintended result when several persons who collectively own 10% of a REIT's tenant, also own collectively 10% of the REIT. So long as those persons are unrelated, because their individual interests in both the REIT and tenant do not equal 10% the REIT is not deemed to own 10% of the tenant. However, if those persons obtain interests, regardless of how small, in the same partnership the REIT will be deemed to own 10% of the tenant. This results from the partnership's deemed ownership of the partners' stock in both tenant and the REIT. Further, because the partnership becomes a deemed 10% owner of the REIT under section 318(a)(3)(A), REIT is deemed the 10% owner of tenant under section 318(a)(3)(C). In essence, the REIT becomes the deemed 10% owner of its tenant as a result of a variation of the partner-to-partner attribution that section 318(a)(5)(C) specifically was enacted to prevent. It is only through the combination of the partners' various interests in the REIT and tenant that a disqualification of the rents occurs. This is true regardless of the purpose for the partnership's existence. The partners may have no knowledge of the other's existence and may be partners in a huge limited partnership completely unrelated to the REIT. H.R. 1150 addresses this problem by modifying the application of section 318(a)(3)(A) (attribution to the partnership) only for purposes of section 856(d)(2), so that attribution would occur only when a partner holds a 25% or greater interest in the partnership. This threshold presumes that such a partner would have knowledge of the other persons holding interests in the partnership, and would have an opportunity to determine if those persons hold an interest in the REIT. By not suspending the double attribution entirely, the bill prevents the potentially abusive practice of placing a ``dummy'' partnership between the REIT and those persons holding interests in the tenant. B. Title II of REITSA contains two proposals that would assist in carrying out Congress' original intent to create a real estate vehicle analogous to regulated investment companies (``RICs''). Section 201. Credit For Tax Paid By REIT On Retained Capital Gains. Current law taxes a REIT that retains capital gains, and imposes a second level of tax on the REIT shareholders when later they receive the capital gain distribution. H.R. 1150 provides for the REIT rules to be modified to correspond with the mutual fund rules governing the taxation of retained capital gains by passing through a credit to shareholders for capital gains taxes paid at the corporate (REIT) level. This modification is necessary to prevent the unintended depletion of a REIT's capital base when it sells property at a taxable gain. Accordingly, the REIT could acquire a replacement property without incurring costly charges associated with a stock offering or debt. Section 202. Reduction in the 95% Distribution Requirement. H.R. 1150 calls for reducing the REIT distribution requirement of taxable ordinary income from 95% to 90%. RICs have a similar distribution requirement, which is set at 90%. The REIT distribution requirement was 90% from 1960 until 1976. As part of the Tax Reform Act of 1976, REITs were granted a special ``deficiency dividend procedure'' designed to protect their status in the face of a redetermination of distributable income pursuant to an IRS audit. In exchange for this decreased risk of inadvertent disqualification, REITs were asked to distribute a higher percentage of their income. However, when the deficiency dividend procedure was extended to RICs in 1978, no corresponding change was made to the RIC distribution requirement. Accordingly, H.R. 1150 calls for a reduction in the REIT distribution requirement to restore conformity between REITs and RICs. C. Title III of REITSA would simplify several technical problems that REITs face in their organization and day-to-day operations. Many of these proposals would build on simplifications that Congress has adopted over the years. Section 301. Modification Of Earnings And Profits Rules For Determining Whether REIT Has Earnings and Profits From Non- REIT Year. Only for purposes of the requirement that a REIT distributen all pre-REIT earnings and profits (``E&P'') within its first taxable year as a REIT, a REIT's distributions should be deemed to carry out all pre-REIT earnings before shareholders are considered to be receiving REIT E&P. Under existing law, a REIT must not only distribute 95% of its REIT taxable income to shareholders, but it must in its first year distribute all pre-REIT year E&P. In the company mistakenly underestimates the amount of E&P generated while operating as a REIT it may fail to satisfy those requirements because the ordering rules controlling the distribution of E&P currently provide that distributions first carry out the most recently accumulated E&P. Thus, if a REIT distributes the pre-REIT E&P and the expected REIT E&P in its first REIT taxable year, the year-end receipt of any unanticipated income would result in the reclassification of a portion of the distribution intended to pass out the pre-REIT E&P. While REITs have methods available to make distributions after the close of their taxable year that relate back to assure satisfaction of the 95% income distribution requirement (to be changed to 90% under REITSA), those methods can not be used to cure a failure to distribute pre- REIT E&P after the close of the REIT's taxable year. Accordingly, by allowing the REIT's distributions to first carry out the pre-REIT E&P, the REIT could satisfy both distribution requirements by using one of the deferred distribution methods to distribute the unanticipated income discussed in the example. Section 302. Treatment of Foreclosure Property. Rules related to foreclosure property should be modernized. For property acquired through foreclosure on a loan or default on a lease, under present law a REIT can elect foreclosure property treatment. That election provides the REIT with 3 special conditions to assist it in taking over the property and seeking its re-leasing or sale. First, a REIT is permitted to conduct a trade or business using property acquired through foreclosure for 90 days after it acquires such property, provided the REIT makes a foreclosure property election. After the 90-day period, the REIT must use an independent contractor to conduct the trade or business (a party from whom the REIT does not receive income). Second, a REIT may hold foreclosure property for resale to customers without being subject to the 100% prohibited transaction tax (although subject to the highest corporate taxes). Third, non-qualifying income from foreclosure property (from activities conducted by the REIT or independent contractor after 90 days) is not considered for purposes of the REIT gross income test, but generally is subject to the highest corporate tax rate. The foreclosure property election is valid for 2 years, but may be extended for 2 additional terms (a total of 6 years) with IRS consent. Under H.R. 1150, the election procedure would be modified in the following ways: (1) the initial election and one renewal period would last for 3 years; (2) the initial election would remain effective until the last day of the third taxable year following the election (instead of exactly two years from the date of election); and (3) a one-time election out of foreclosure property status would be made available to accommodate situations when a REIT desires to discontinue foreclosure property status. In addition, the independent contractor rule under the election would be modernized so that it worked in the same manner as the general independent contractor rule. Currently, a REIT may provide to tenants of non-foreclosure property services customary in the leasing of real property. However, this previous modernization of the independent contractor rule was not made to the rules governing the required use of independent contractors for foreclosure property. Section 303. Special Foreclosure Rules For Health Care Properties. In the case of health care REITs, H.R. 1150 provides that a REIT would not violate the independent contractor requirement if the REIT receives rents from a lease to that independent contractor as a tenant at a second health care facility. This change recognizes the limited number of health care providers available to serve as an independent contractor on a property acquired by the REIT in foreclosure, and the REIT's likely inability to simply close the facility due to the nature of the facility's inhabitants. In addition, the health care rules would extend the foreclosure property rules to expirations or terminations of health care REIT leases, since similar issues concerning a limited number of operators arise in those circumstances. However, foreclosure property treatment in these cases would be limited to a two-year period, unless the Secretary grants one or two possible two-year extensions. Section 304. Payments Under Hedging Instruments. H.R. 1150 would extend the REIT variable interest hedging rule to permit a REIT to treat as qualifying any income from the hedge of any REIT liability secured by real property or used to acquire or improve real property. For example, this provision would apply to hedging a REIT's unsecured corporate debenture or the currency risk of a debt offering denominated in a foreign currency. Section 305. Excess Noncash Income. H.R. 1150 would expand the use of the excess noncash income exclusion currently provided under the REIT distribution rules. The bill would (1) extend the exclusion to include most forms of phantom income and (2) make the exclusion available to accrual basis REITs. Under the exclusion, listed forms of phantom income would be excluded from the REIT 90% distribution requirement. However, the income would be taxed at the REIT level if the REIT did not make sufficient distributions. Section 306. Prohibited Transaction Safe Harbor. H.R. 1150 would correct a problem in the wording of Congress' past liberalization of the safe harbor from the 100% excise tax on prohibited transactions, i.e., sales of property in the ordinary course of business. Involuntary conversions of property no longer would count against the permitted 7 sales of property under the safe harbor. Section 307. Shared Appreciation Mortgages (``SAM''). In general, section 856(j) provides that a REIT may receive income based on a borrower's sale of the underlying property. However, the character of that income is determined by the borrower's actions. The SAM provision would be modified and clarified so that a REIT lender would not be penalized by a borrower's bankruptcy (an event beyond its control) and would clarify that a SAM could be based on appreciation in value as well as gain. Section 308. Wholly Owned Subsidiaries. In 1986, Congress realized the usefulness of a REIT holding properties in subsidiaries to limit its liability exposure. H.R. 1150 would codify an IRS private letter ruling position providing that a REIT may treat a wholly-owned subsidiary as a qualified REIT subsidiary even if the subsidiary previously had been owned by a non-REIT entity. H.R. 1150 would allow a REIT to treat a corporation as a qualified REIT subsidiary when it acquires for cash and/or stock all the stock of a non-REIT C or S corporation. The effective date would be for taxable years beginning after the date of enactment.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, all across America, in the small towns and great cities of this country, our heritage as a nation--the physical evidence of our past--is at risk. In virtually every corner of this land, homes in which grandparents and parents grew up, communities and neighborhoods that nurtured vibrant families, schools that were good places to learn and churches and synagogues that were filled on days of prayer, have suffered the ravages of abandonment and decay. In the decade from 1980 to 1990, Chicago lost 41,000 housing units through abandonment, Philadelphia 10,000, and St. Louis 7,000. The story in our older small communities has been the same, and the trend continues. It is important to understand that it is not just the buildings that we are losing. It is the sense of our past, the vitality of our communities and the shared values of those precious places. We need not stand hopelessly by as passive witnesses to the loss of these irreplaceable historic resources. We can act, and to that end I am introducing today with my colleagues, Mrs. Kennelly, Mr. Lewis, Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut, and Mr. English, the Historic Homeownership Assistance Act. This legislation is almost identical to legislation introduced in the 104th Congress as H.R. 1662. It is patterned after the existing Historic Rehabilitation Investment tax credit. That legislation has been enormously successful in stimulating private investment in the rehabilitation of buildings of historic importance all across the country. Through its use we have been able to save and re-use a rich and diverse array of historic buildings: landmarks such as Union Station in Washington, D.C.; the Fox Paper Mills, a mixed-used project that was once a derelict in Appleton, WI; and the Rosa True School, an eight-unit low/moderate income rental project in an historic building in Portland, Maine. In my own State of Florida, since 1974, the existing Historic Rehabilitation Investment Tax Credit has resulted in over 325 rehabilitation projects, leveraging more than $238 million in private investment. These projects range from the restoration of art deco hotels in historic Miami Beach, bringing economic rebirth to this once decaying area, to the development of multifamily housing in the Springfield Historic District in Jacksonville. The legislation that I am introducing today builds on the familiar structure of the existing tax credit but with a different focus. It is designed to empower the one major constituency that has been barred from using the existing credit--homeowners. Only those persons who rehabilitate or purchase a newly rehabilitated home and occupy it as their principal residence would be entitled to the credit that this legislation would create. There would be no passive losses, no tax shelters, and no syndications under this bill. Like the existing investment credit, the bill would provide a credit to homeowners equal to 20 percent of the qualified rehabilitation expenditures made on an eligible building that is used as a principal residence by the owner. Eligible buildings would be those that are listed on the National Register of Historic Places, are contributing buildings in National Register Historic Districts or in nationally certified state or local historic districts or are individually listed on a nationally certified state or local register. As is the case with the existing credit, the rehabilitation work would have to be performed in compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's standards for rehabilitation, although the bill would clarify the directive that the standards be interpreted in a manner that takes into consideration economic and technical feasibility. The bill also makes provision for lower-income home buyers who may not have sufficient federal income tax liability to use a tax credit. It would permit such persons to receive a historic rehabilitation mortgage credit certificate which they can use with their bank to obtain a lower interest rate on their mortgage. The legislation also permits home buyers in distressed areas to use the certificate to lower their down payment. The credit would be available for condominiums and co-ops, as well as single-family buildings. If a building were to be rehabilitated by a developer for sale to a homeowner, the credit would pass through to the homeowner. Since one purpose of the bill is to provide incentives for middle-income and more affluent families to return to older towns and cities, the bill does not discriminate among taxpayers on the basis of income. It does, however, impose a cap of $50,000 on the amount of credit which may be taken for a principal residence. The Historic Homeownership Assistance Act will make ownership of a rehabilitated older home more affordable for homeowners of modest incomes. It will encourage more affluent families to claim a stake in older towns and neighborhoods. It affords fiscally stressed cities and towns a way to put abandoned buildings back on the tax roles, while strengthening their income and sales tax bases. It offers developers, realtors, and homebuilders a new realm of economic opportunity in revitalizing decaying buildings. Mr. Speaker, this bill is no panacea. Although its goals are great, its reach will be modest. But it can make a difference, and an importance difference. In communities large and small all across this nation. The American dream of owning one's home is a powerful force. This bill can help it come true for those who are prepared to make a personal commitment to join in the rescue of our priceless heritage. By their actions they can help to revitalize decaying resources of historic importance, create jobs and stimulate economic development, and restore to our older towns and cities a lost sense of purpose and community. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and an explanation of its provisions be printed in the Record. ``Historic Homeownership Assistance Act'' Legislation to create a 20 percent tax credit for the rehabilitation of a historic structure occupied by the taxpayer as his principal residence was sponsored last Congress by Representatives Clay Shaw (R-FL) and Barbara Kennelly (D-CT) in the House, and by Senators John Chafee (R- RI) and Bob Graham (D-FL) in the Senate. Although this legislation did not become law, it received considerable support in Congress and we are planning for reintroduction next session and an active campaign to secure its passage. goals of the historic homeownership assistance act Expand homeownership opportunities for low- and middle- income individuals and families; Stimulate the revival of declining neighborhoods and communities; Enlarge and stabilize the tax base of cities and small towns; Preserve and protect historic homes. major provisions of the historic homeownership assistance act Rate of Credit, Eligible buildings: The rate of credit is 20 percent of qualified rehabilitation expenditures. Eligible buildings include those listed on national or federally- certified state and local historic registers, and buildings which are located in national or federally-certified state and local historic districts. Eligible buildings (or a portion) must be owned and occupied by the tax payer as his principal residence. Condominiums and cooperatives would be eligible for the tax credit. Rehabilitation would have to be performed in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Historic Rehabilitation. Maximum Credit, Minimum Expenditures: The maximum credit allowable would be $50,000 for each principal residence, subject to Alternative Minimum Tax provisions. Rehabilitation must be substantial--the greater of $5,000 or the adjusted basis of the building--with an exception for buildings in census tracts targeted as distressed for Mortgage Revenue Bond purposes under I.R.C. Sec. 143(j)(1) and Enterprise and Empowerment Zones, where the minimum expenditure must be $5,000. At least 5 percent of the qualified rehabilitation expenditures would have to be spent on the exterior of the building. Mortgage Credit Certificate Provision for Low and Moderate Income Homeowners: Taxpayers who do not have sufficient federal income tax liability to make use of the credit could elect to receive, in lieu of the credit, an Historic Rehabilitation Mortgage Credit Certificate in the face amount of the credit to which the taxpayer is entitled. The taxpayer would then transfer the certificate to the mortgage lender in exchange for a reduced interest rate on the home mortgage loan. The mortgage lender would be permitted to reduce its own federal income tax liability by the face amount of the certificate. Targeted Flexibility for Historic Rehabilitation Standards: For buildings in census tracts targeted as distressed or located within an Enterprise and Empowerment Zone, the Secretary would be required to give consideration to: (1) the feasibility of preserving existing architectural or design elements of the interior of such building; (2) the risk of further deterioration or demolition of such building in the event that certification is denied because of the failure to preserve such interior elements; and, (3) the effects of such deterioration or demolition on neighboring historic properties. No Passive Activity Rules, No Income Cap on Eligibility: Passive activity rules would not apply because by occupying and rehabilitating a qualifying residence, the individual is not an investor but utilizing the property as his primary residence. There would be no income cap because the proposed legislation is intended not only to foster homeownership and encourage rehabilitation of deteriorated buildings, but also to promote economic diversity within neighborhoods and increased local ad valorem real property, income and sales tax revenues. Process for Certifying Qualified Rehabilitation Expenditures: Maintains the certification process for the existing rehab credit, but authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to enter into cooperative agreements allowing the State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs) and Certified Local Governments (CLGs) to certify projects within their respective jurisdictions. The SHPOs would have the authority to levy fees for processing applications for certification, provided that the proceeds of such fees are used only to defray expenses associated with the processing of the application. Revenue Loss Estimate: The Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated the revenue loss of the Historic Homeownership Assistance Act to be $368 million over a seven year period.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas], a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. SHAW. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, in the years that I have been in Congress, I cannot think of one time that I have disagreed with the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] or the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert] on a question having to do with the war on drugs. Both of these gentlemen have been in the forefront of every worthwhile project. And I must say, in looking at the amendment that has been filed and that is before the House at this time, that the 6 points are very well thought out and should be in this bill. However, going on to the second provision in the bill, we find what for many of our Democrat friends will be a poison pill. It is unnecessary. It does not add to the meaning of the bill and it should not be part of this particular bill. I regret that it is in there, and therefore I must reluctantly oppose this particular amendment. I think it is time for us to build an alliance on what we agree upon and not try to, when we find that we are coming together on an issue and working on such an important issue, with Democrats and Republicans working together and building an alliance, we should not trample on that alliance by putting something into an amendment that is going to be a difficult poison pill for our friends on the Democrat side to swallow. Therefore, I disagree with this particular provision within the amendment. I think it is vitally important, and I would speak now to my Republican side, it is vitally important that we come out of this particular session and this vote with a huge majority. We need to send a message down to the Senate that we are serious about what we are talking about on decertification. We need as many on the Democrat side as we can possible get. It is a difficult vote for them voting to override the certification that the Democrat President has placed upon Mexico. Let us not make it tougher. Let us work together. These 6 points, I am confident that they add so much to the bill that they will end up in the bill that will finally come back after the conference, because it is a good amendment until you get to the poison pill. But we do not have the ability here to separate the amendment. We do not have the ability under the rule to separate out that particular portion. But we do have the ability in conference to put back the good, sound thinking of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert] on the part of the amendment that really makes sense and has substance to it. Therefore, I would ask that the Republicans look at this as a chance to build bridges to the other side and to build on this alliance. Drug policy has never been and should not be a partisan issue. We will have plenty of times to talk about the record of Mr. Clinton as far as the drug issue. As a Republican, I cannot say that anything I disagree with is in the bill, but this is no place for it. It should not be in this amendment. Therefore, I ask all the members to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the chairman and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Lee Hamilton], and I want to congratulate both the Democratic ranking member and the chairman for working so hard to bring this legislation forward and in doing it in such a bipartisan manner. I hope the spirit of that bipartisanship continues through the amendment process and that we get a good, unified vote out of here. I will have more to say about the amendment when my turn comes to do so. Mr. Speaker, much has been said about the certification process itself on the House floor. Let us turn our attention just a moment to whether or not this is really interfering within the internal affairs of Mexico. The question has been made, why would we insult them, why would we embarrass them? Let us look at some of the things we use to judge our foreign policy toward other countries and what we look at in determining what our foreign policy is to be. Every year we go through a debate on the human rights in China, and the human rights and the way people treat their own citizens is always a consideration in our own foreign policy. We even look at the economic system that other countries have. We look at how they vote in the United Nations. We look at what their trade laws are, whether they protect our copyrights, their banking laws. We look at all of these things. We even look at the way they treat dolphins in deciding what our foreign policy and trade law is going to be with other countries. Surely we can also judge them as to how they treat our kids, how they treat our drug laws, how they assist us in a problem that is tearing the fabric out of America today. We have long worried about hostile countries throughout the world and the weapons of giant destruction they have. We go in and take out and bomb plants that have the ability to create and build weapons of great destruction. Surely we can enforce our own laws. We are talking about has Mexico fully cooperated. Fully cooperated. The answer under any measure, as the gentleman said in his opening statement, is of course not; they have not fully cooperated. In fact, it could be argued whether they have hardly cooperated. Let me run down a few items that I think must be placed on the table and must be considered by this body when we go to our vote today on decertification. Well over 50 percent of the illegal drugs coming into the country today come in through Mexico. They supply 20 to 30 percent of the heroin in the United States. Eighty percent of the foreign-grown marijuana comes in from Mexico, and they supply it. The corruption in Mexico and their law enforcement is monumental. A nation with between $10 and $30 billion in an annual drug trade, this is Mexico we are talking about. Almost half a billion dollars a year is spent in bribes, and they have failed to extradite one single Mexican national on a drug offense. Mr. Speaker, surely we should not tiptoe around and worry about offending them. I want every Member of this body this afternoon, when they come down to vote, to think about looking in the eyes of their children, their grandchildren, the innercity kids, the kids whose future is being destroyed, look at those who are struggling to get out of welfare today. Over 1 million of them are going to need drug rehabilitation before we can even find jobs for them. Think of all the people who are flunking drug tests and cannot be hired today because of policies that corporations have. Then look and see where these drugs are coming from. For a moment, dream with me about a drug-free America. Should this not be the No. 1 issue on our foreign policy today? The gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel] talked about it a few moments ago. There was a question of where does it stand on the priority list of our State Department. I am not talking about just the Clinton administration, I am talking about previous administrations, too. It should be No. 1. It should be No. 1. There should not be one single issue that should rise above the question of the drug problem here in the United States. That is where we are going to lose our country. That is where we are going to lose our future if we do not get serious about it. This is a small step. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] said this is only an insult. Let us begin with an insult. But we have to bring about the reality of what is going on, what is going on in the world today. We have a certification process. Let us use it. Let us go forward. Let us continue this bipartisan effort that we have to pass this most important piece of legislation.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the gentleman who just left the well that not one of those extraditions has been a Mexican national on a drug offense. That is the problem that we are facing. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman New York [Mr. Paxon].

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest].

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. English], a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I ask to speak immediately after one of the cosponsors of the resolution that is going to be before the House today, my friend, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica]. I rise in support of this particular rule. Plain and simple, regardless of where you come down on the Hastert amendment, if you want to vote on the decertification process you must pass this rule. Otherwise, it is not going to happen. It is a question of do you just want to have a sense of the Congress, business as usual in our war against drugs, then vote against the rule. It is that simple. Now, the fact that we vote for the rule does not mean that we have to vote for the Hastert amendment. I have some very, very serious problems with the Hastert amendment and in all probability will vote against it. However, this is a good rule. I think there are plenty of good things in the Hastert amendment, but there are some things that I would have dropped out. I think to put the criticism of the administration, even though I think it is deserved, but I think to put that into the bill and then ask the Democrats to vote for it is going to be pretty much of a tough call. I think also the question of setting up a commission should be done by a separate bill, and I think it should have moved separately through the House. But please, if Members feel that Mexico has not fully cooperated, the bill says, the certification process says, that the President certifies that Mexico has cooperated, fully cooperated, with us, they cannot possibly vote for certification. Therefore, approve the rule and vote for the bill.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, on a subject of seriousness, what I want to talk about today, I find it a little difficult following the gentleman from Ohio. It is shocking, Mr. Speaker, indeed shocking, that with all of the evidence before the President regarding the complicity of the Mexican Government and the $30 billion a year drug trade, that he has decided to certify Mexico as a reliable partner in the war on drugs. The President's certification of Mexico makes a mockery out of the certification process. Ironically, within mere hours after the President announced that Mexico was certified as cooperating, Mexican authorities admitted that a suspected top drug money launderer had inexplicably escaped from police custody and that they knew this days before the certification decision was made. Is this what the President calls cooperation? Was it not enough that Mexico's own drug czar was caught accepting bribes from the drug kingpins just last week? The President was duped. I realize that Mexico is a friend and the United States-Mexican economics are intertwined, but certifying Mexico as cooperating sent the wrong message to the Mexican Government and to the drug kingpins.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in the House and the residents of Dade County, FL, to recognize an upcoming leader in my district, Ms. Emily Levy. Emily, a senior at North Miami Beach Senior High, has been chosen as a finalist in the prestigious Westinghouse Science Talent Search for her work with children with learning disabilities. Emily has displayed an astonishing level of maturity and dedication to her community for someone who is only 17 years old. As a volunteer at a school for children with learning disabilities, Ms. Levy noticed the frustration her students experienced while trying to learn in a traditional manner. As a result, she created a nonlinear program that has made learning easier for her students. She spent 5 years meticulously revising this brain imagery form of conceptual organization. Ms. Levy can be proud that because of her efforts, the course of young lives can be changed, and minds can be opened. In addition to her obvious talent in the science field she maintains a 5.04 grade point average--on a 4.0 scale--has won piano and oratory competitions, and models professionally. She will be attending Brown University in the fall. Mr. Speaker, I am proud and delighted to count Ms. Emily Levy as a constituent, and am sure that this is not the last we will hear from her.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I will make this very simple. Mexico is not a reliable ally in the war on drugs. Continued and pervasive corruption of Mexican law enforcement, including its top antidrug official, make the choice clear. A nation with between $10 and $30 billion in annual drug trade, whose law enforcement and government officials are estimated to receive almost half a billion dollars a year in bribes and whose antidrug czar was in the employ of one of Mexico's most wanted drug lords, does not deserve our certification. Our Nation's young people are at risk. If we want to take a strong stand against drug use, then we must not certify a country with the kind of problems we are seeing in Mexico. We cannot close our eyes to the antics of Mexico's drug lords and the complicity of Mexican government officials just for the trade benefits. While Mexican President Zedillo's efforts are encouraging, we need to see some real results. The results will not be forthcoming until the President of Mexico can get the support of the rest of the government with him. Plain and simple: Certification can wait until then.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the late Virginia Anderson Boone of Miami, FL, and to share in the festivities of a special event held in her honor. As the founding principal of Highland Oaks Elementary School in North Miami Beach, FL, Virginia Boone tirelessly devoted 31 years of her career to the thousands of children who studied under her tutelage. During Mrs. Boone's tenure, Highland Oaks Elementary became one of the finest schools in all of Dade County, the fourth largest county in these United States. Year after year, Highland Oaks ranked among the top schools for the best test scores which are compared to other schools across the Nation. Thanks to the strength and commitment of a woman who expected nothing less than the very best from her faculty and her students, Highland Oaks set standards which are still beyond the grasp of most other schools. Although childless, Virginia Boone became a parent to her faculty, staff, and students. She treated those who worked for her, as well as those who studied in her school, as though they were her own children, caring for their health, attending their weddings and the myriad of bar and bat mitzvahs. Many of her former students, now adults, would often stop by for a visit. She even hired a teacher who had been a student in her first graduating class. For decades it became near-impossible to find an opening on the Highland Oaks' faculty. Those who were the lucky ones because the envy of many who wanted to share in the good fortune of working for a woman who would become a mentor and a friend, sharing in the success of watching thousands of children benefit from their years at Highland Oaks Elementary. It is a true gift for one to watch a child excel in life and know that they have played an important part. I am told that is what Virginia Boone lived for. After her passing earlier this year, the faculty, the PTA, the northeast Dade community and the Dade County School Board unanimously voted to rename the school to honor the woman who touched so many lives. I am delighted to have the privilege of representing this involved, outstanding community on this very special occasion. On September 25, 1996, Highland Oaks Elementary will be officially renamed, ``Virginia A. Boone Highland Oaks Elementary.'' Congratulations and best wishes for continued success. I ask unanimous consent that these remarks be included in the Record.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 75th anniversary of St. Anthony's Catholic Church, the first Catholic Church in Broward County. The church was constructed of formidable gray stone hauled in from the quarries of northern Florida and was dedicated in December 1921. There are 251 parishioners at the time of construction and it was decided that a school was needed. In 1926, St. Anthony School became the first Catholic school in Broward County. Today there are more than 1,500 parishioners and the current pastor, Father Timothy G. Hannon, ministers to his parish in the grand tradition of the past. It has been a joy for me and my family to be parishioners and partake of the sacraments and blessings available. My children attended St. Anthony's School and both my daughters were married in the beauty of the Church sanctuary. I know from personal experience that our church has the longest aisle in Fort Lauderdale. Members of the parish and the community are joining in 1996 to celebrate 75 years in Fort Lauderdale. We look forward to meeting again in 25 years to celebrate the 100th anniversary of our beautiful spiritual home. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in honoring St. Anthony's Catholic Church for its 75 years of service to our community.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte]. (Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle], who has done a great deal in this conference in bringing the two sides together.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr Bilirakis], a valued member of the Committee on Commerce. (Mr. BILIRAKIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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 matter on the conference report on H.R. 3734.