E. Shaw

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman, I would like to respond very quickly to what the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] said. Nobody in this House is criticizing or putting anything saying that people coming into this country to experience the American dream are in the class of felons. That is ridiculous. That argument falls on deaf ears. It has no relevancy. But I would like to share this with him. When his parents or grandparents came into this country, they made a pledge not to become a public charge, and I would bet next week's paycheck that they did not become a public charge. They came for a better way of life, and they went to work. They made something of themselves, and they had a child or a grandchild that came to the U.S. Congress. I would also like to say, when we are talking about aliens, aliens over 65 are five times more likely to go on SSI than citizens over 65. Alien SSI applications have increased 370 percent from 1982 to 1992. We have got to stop making welfare available for citizens of other countries. It is that simple. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Christensen], a valuable member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Ensign], a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington [Ms. Dunn].

Mr. SHAW. Modification is. I would tell the gentleman, read section 1023 of your bill.

Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. English], a valued member of the Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the State of Georgia [Mr. Collins, a valued member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to advise the last speaker who said that our bill is tough on children that the bill she referred to, which will be the Gephardt substitute, mimics exactly what is in the bill that she is criticizing as far as the children's program are concerned. I would also tell the gentlewoman that in the bill there is some $6 billion of cuts in EITC, which is what the President criticized the Republicans for as calling that a tax increase. It is not in our bill, it is in her bill. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington [Ms. Dunn], a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer], a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. I think we are, and I sense that we are, right here in one of the finest hours of this Congress. We are taking one of the thorniest, most difficult political issues for all of the Members on both sides, and we are opening up the rule to this extent. I think it is truly remarkable and speaks very well of the leadership in this Congress and the faith that the Republicans, as the majority, has in the Democrats as the minority. We are not only allowing a second bill to be introduced and we are not only allowing the motion to reconsider, but also we are also relaxing the dollar figure because this is a reconciliation process. Under the rules the minority party could have been absolutely shut out of this process by simply saying, ``Adhere to the rules, and the rules means you've got to save $60 billion.'' This was not done, and I think that is absolutely in the absolute tradition of fairness. Now we are going to be faced with a bill that is a substitute. Interestingly enough, both the Republican bill and the substitute that is going to be offered here today in the entitlement of welfare; that is a quantum leap. It shows confidence in the States in block granting them to the States. That is a quantum leap for this Congress, and I think that it speaks very well of those that support either one of those issues. And then those that do not really believe that the States should take over the welfare system, the Democrats are given the opportunities on a motion to recommit. So, if they want to hold on to much of the status quo and hold on to the Federal grip on welfare, they will have the opportunity to do so and put it forth in a Democrat process, and that is absolutely amazing, and it is wonderful that this is happening, particularly in these days where we see that there are so many gotchas and oneupmanships going on in this House. So I want to compliment all of the people, to very briefly that one might say, ``Well, if the Castle-Tanner bill and the Republican bill both block grant welfare, then what is the difference?'' Well, there are two, really two, basic differences that we are going to be asked to consider ourselves and to decide between. Those of us who are going to oppose the Castle-Tanner bill, those of us on the Republican side who oppose that particular bill, we do not believe that American taxpayers should simply still be required to shell out their money to pay welfare to noncitizens. This is a growing, growing area where the alien population on welfare is growing at a much higher percent than the U.S. citizen group. So we feel that Castle-Tanner is going the wrong way on that. We also feel that in the area of time-limited welfare, to put out vouchers after the 5 years is counterproductive to what we want to do. But we are compassionate, we do say that 20 percent of the case load can be made an exception, and if the States want to go ahead and pay that amount out after 5 years, they can, and we also explicitly state in the bill that the States that want to use their own dollars to pay out after 5 years, they simply can do that too. We are not strapping the States, we are not limiting the States, in that regard. But I look forward to a very healthy debate, one in which we will voice very honest differences of opinion today. I think this is going to be one of the finest hours that we will have in this Congress, and we are now given the tremendous opportunity to end the stagnation of welfare that has destroyed so many lives, and that is the important thing, and that is what we have got to accomplish. And after we get through with this democratic process, I hope that the President will follow suit, not play politics, and sign this bill.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I want to address some of the remarks made by the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. tanner]. This bill has been very, very carefully crafted, and it is something we did not draw up last night or even last year. We have been working on this thing for so long, we have had so many drafts, and I think it has been done in the most compassionate way possible. I would like to recognize Dr. Ron Haskins as someone who has been a great resource not only for the Republican side but he has also been a great resource for the Castle-Tanner people. To address the question that is immediately before us can States craft vouchers after 5 years, the bill that is before us, that we are about to vote on on final passage, has a 20-percent exception in it. It provides that States can take 20 percent of their caseload and take it out of the welfare reform picture. This simply means that they can use that money, the 20 percent, to issue vouchers if they want to, so in effect it does what the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Tanner] is talking about. Mr. Speaker, this is extraordinarily important. Also, we particularly provide in the bill, so that we do maintain States' rights in the bill, specifically that there is absolutely no Federal hold on what the States do with their own funds. So, in effect, what Mr. Tanner wants to do can be done. The difference is what message do we send from this body. Are we for genuine welfare reform? Are we for time limits on welfare reform? That is the message that we have got to send from this Congress if we are going to look for the people to get up and go to work and cooperate with us and take hold of their lives. This is the message that we carry with us when we are trying to rescue people from a corrupted system of welfare that has prevailed in this country now for 60 years. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the motion to recommit and a ``yes'' vote on final passage.

Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. McCrery], a most valuable member of the Committee on Ways and Means who was very instrumental in crafting the bill before us.

Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Franks], a distinguished member of the Committee on Commerce.

Mr. SHAW. I mean the gentleman has been asking us to work with him in a bipartisan way, we come toward his position, and he says they scared us off of it. Come on. Let us lighten up.

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

Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, I would simply say to the gentleman that those same provisions are in our bill, and we certainly do not save any $6 billion. Madam Chairman, I yield to the 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Talent].

Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Tanner] to find out how he saves $6 billion on EITC without affecting any benefits. I mean I have been debating this as a straightforward bill, but I am wondering how in the world he saves that without affecting the benefits.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the legislation just concluded.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of a Natural Disaster Protection Partnership Act. This legislation was introduced by the late, distinguished Member of this body who we now greatly miss, Mr. Emerson. It is imperative that we take Mr. Emerson's lead and continue to work for the passage of this disaster plan into law. Without a natural disaster protection partnership plan, this country will face a severe financial crisis. As a Representative from Florida, I am very concerned with the destruction caused by natural forces such as hurricanes and tornadoes. Last year was one of the most active hurricane seasons ever. The destruction caused by these hurricanes is tremendous, as can be seen by Andrew and Opal. Moreover, extensive damage is seen every year by other types of natural disasters such as earthquakes in California and floods in the Plains States. As a result of the rising costs of these natural disasters, consumers in these disaster prone areas face difficulty obtaining affordable homeowner's insurance. Moreover, taxpayers have been forced to spend $45 billion in 6 years for these disasters because homeowners and States have been unprepared to handle these catastrophes. Clearly, we must act now before FEMA's funds are depleted and homeowners cannot purchase insurance to protect them from these disasters. In light of Hurricane Bertha, which is threatening the southeastern coast, we must pass a disaster plan that mitigates physical damage, provides insurance protection for homeowners and businesses and reduces Federal disaster costs. I encourage each of you to contact Chairman Boehlert and express your support for passing this legislation this year.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with great pleasure to recognize a south Floridian who this year is celebrating her 50th anniversary as an Adrian Dominican sister. Through her dedication to her work, her faith, and her students, Sister Jeanne O'Laughlin is one of the pillars upon which our south Florida community continues to grow and excel. Sister Jeanne's work began at an early age in her hometown of Detroit. Instilled with the values of her father, she took jam to the elderly in a nursing home, lent money to those in need, and was well ahead of her time in race relations. She learned the importance of education from her family. Sister Jeanne combined her passions for service, education, and religion by becoming an Adrian Dominican nun at sixteen. She has continued her mission of education and community service in her work as president of Barry University. Since assuming this post 15 years ago, her tireless efforts have dramatically enhanced many aspects of both the university and Dade county. As president, Sister Jeanne has helped raise over $115 million for the university through an array of fundraising events--even lending her singing voice to the cause. She has diversified the student body of Barry, shifting it from a mostly white female population to include students from over 72 countries. Sister Jeanne is constantly involved in community activities-- chairing the Miami Coalition for a Drug Free Community and acting as president for three other national organizations. Her good works have been recognized by the likes of the Miami Herald, Florida Governor Lawton Chiles, President Clinton, and Pope John Paul II. Her many generous deeds, both individually and community wide, are legend. I had a chance to witness Sister Jeanne's tenacity firsthand some years ago when she approached me to assist her in gaining the release of three Chinese women seeking asylum in the United States. These women had been locked up in a dingy hotel room near the Miami International Airport for many months, and Sister Jeanne did not rest until asylum was granted. Recently I had the chance to see Sister Jeanne speak to students at an anti-drug forum. Her ability to elicit a response from these jaded, street smart kids was uncanny, and she most definitely made an impact on the teenagers lives. It is clear that the 16-hour days that Sister Jeanne works have paid enormous dividends in our community. Whenever I see Sister Jeanne, she reminds me that she prays for me and the other elected officials charged with making decisions. I, for one, sleep easier for this. Mr. Speaker, throughout the United States are many individuals who dedicate their lives to such key social issues as education and community service. Sister Jeanne O'Laughlin is one individual who through her 50 years of service has helped to strengthen our Nation. We in south Florida are truly grateful. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Sister Jeanne O'Laughlin as she celebrates her golden jubilee 50th anniversary as an Adrian Dominican sister.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Missouri for allowing me this time to speak this morning. Mr. Speaker, I have seen so many of our classmates that came to orientation back in 1980 with Bill Emerson, as I was privileged to come to this Congress at the same time. And in thinking about the life of Bill Emerson which we celebrate today, and of course, his passing, which we mourn today, I think all of us feel a little richer for having been with him and a little poorer for now missing him from this body. But when we think of his lifespan, starting as a page in this body and ending over the last year with his sitting here and presiding as Speaker of this House and working in this House, I do not think that any man has ever been loved more that served in this House, or any man has loved this House more than Bill Emerson loved this House. He loved the process and he loved its Members. I think that is something we need to think about more today as we see that things are becoming more tense here on the floor of this House, and as we work through our legislative process. We often think of Tip O'Neill as being the man of this House. I think we certainly can also refer to Bill Emerson as being the man of this House from the Republican side, as Tip O'Neill was from the Democrat side. As speakers ahead of me have said, he seemed to have a way to cut through the politics and make things happen. He was very practical in wanting to make good legislation. We have heard about his concern for the hungry, not only of this country, but also of the world. His great heart, that no longer beats, had such compassion for his fellow men, had compassion for the people that he served with. I remember just a few weeks ago Bill was on the floor and he was standing right over to my left, where we remember seeing him for the last time in a wheelchair. And he was walking. He was still walking over for each vote, carrying a little tube of oxygen with him, and losing his breath. He was concerned about his losing his energy. When he came over here, he had lost his breath. I mentioned to him that perhaps he ought to think about getting a wheelchair. and he said, my goodness, I do not want to do that. People will look at me and think I am dying. Bill fought right up to the very, very end. Of course, then he decided that he would save his energy so he cold spend his time in a productive way when he was on the floor, and the last few days of his life here on the floor he would appear here in the wheelchair. What a wonderful man Bill was. We are certainly going to miss him. Our hearts and our feelings go out to his wonderful wife Jo Ann, who is a wonderful friend of my wife Emily, and of course Bill Emerson, who was a wonderful friend of all of us. I think it would be a great tribute for each one of us in our hearts and in our daily work to think of Bill Emerson when we try to get together and pass meaningful legislation; as we go through the last months of this 104th Congress, that we dedicate each day to a greater understanding of each other, in the true memory of Bill Emerson.

Mr. SHAW

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

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I wish that were to be the case, and I would like to comment, too, on the funding area for which the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] picked out in order to fund this amendment, and it is a construction of roads into new forests that have not been harvested. I have always looked at this with a great deal of skepticism as to why in the world that we are putting these roads to nowhere through our national forests and, in effect, selling off these, in many cases, very precious timber resources at a loss when we put the price of the road in there. To me, I think we need to take a look, and I would hope that the Committee on Natural Resources would take a look, at reexamining our whole outlook as to how we manage our natural resources. We can certainly go in and, with some good forestry practices, we can cut our national forests. I am not necessarily opposed to that, but I think it is absolutely absurd to do this at a loss to the American taxpayers because we are losing the precious natural resources, being the national forests, and we are constructing roads to nowhere that really are not doing anybody any good, and we are losing money in the process. To me this makes absolutely no sense. But to get back to the main thrust of the amendment, this is a very important amendment, and at this time I will not object should the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] want to withdraw the amendment based upon the colloquy with the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula].

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly come to speak in favor of the amendment, not because of the contents, but just recognizing the work that this committee has done in trying to balance the needs of this country. But we have a problem of national proportions, which is a national responsibility in south Florida. Early on in the history of south Florida, south Florida, the rim of south Florida had a natural dike. Outside we had, of course, the Atlantic Ocean. Within, we had a river of grass, which now is known as the Florida Everglades. There were natural springs bubbling up in downtown Fort Lauderdale, just in the new river. There were natural springs in Dade County that were bubbling up. It was a true tropical paradise. Then, along came development within the Everglades itself. The whole attitude of the people was to drain the swamps, get rid of the alligators, get rid of all the problems, drain the swamps and put in a series of canals. Then agriculture came in to backfill on what was once the river of grass and the bottom of this giant swamp. We have found that because of this right now, something has happened which has got everything out of balance. We have found that the natural ecosystem of the Everglades now is in serious danger, irreversible danger. We find down at the south end of the Florida bay that the natural marine habitat is disappearing, which is the nursery for all of the fisheries going up the coast, the east and west coast of Florida. We have found that this is being caused because of the salinity that is building up and the rapid change of the salinity because of the rapid flow of the waters down into the southern part of the Everglades National Park, which is the Florida Bay. This is a national responsibility. The only way to solve this problem is to reacquire some of this land and try to turn to the past and try to reestablish the natural flow of much of the water flowing through the Everglades. What is the tradeoff? The tradeoff is the irreparable damage that is being caused right now, day by day, as we sit here. We are finding that this is happening at a more and more rapid rate every day. It is imperative that more money be found for land acquisition so that we can put a stop to this destruction of this most valuable natural resource. It is a Federal responsibility. It is an entire network of Federal lands. It is a great national park. It is tremendously important, not only for the natural environment of Florida, but for the very supply of water that supplies the growing population of south Florida. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I think what the gentleman from California is proposing is a transfer of these funds from the fossil fuel area into the land acquisition fund, so we can speed up the acquisition of this land, is a most reasonable request. I would therefore urge all the Members to support this amendment, which will speed up the restoration of the Everglades and perhaps actually save the Everglades from the destructive process that has been put into place over many, many years of neglect and misunderstanding of the environment of south Florida.