E. Shaw

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a remarkable Floridian, Alec Courtelis, who died last month at the age of 68. Alec's life defined the American success story. He came to America as a 20- year-old Greek immigrant and persevered to achieve great success as a Florida developer, breeder of Arabian racehorses, chairman of the board of regents, and as a major player in the national political arena. As a teenager growing up in Alexandria, Egypt, Alec watched John Wayne movies and dreamed of one day moving to America. At 20, he was accepted to the University of Miami and traveled 7,000 miles across the Mediterranean and Atlantic to begin life in a country that would not inhibit his hopes and aspirations. Upon graduation from the University of Miami, Alec worked as a engineer for 5 years before launching a thriving career in real estate development and construction. Under Alec's direction, Florida swamps and sand pits were converted into lavish housing developments and upscale shopping malls. Included in Alec's projects were the Falls in South Dade, Skylake in Northeast Dade, Town Park Estates in the Coral Park area, and University Lakes in Miami. Alec strongly embraced this country and the belief that each person can make a difference. He became well entrenched in the political arena, not only locally, but on a national scale. Alec's accomplishments were not limited to real estate and politics; he was also a major player in the Arabian racehorse business. The Courtelis' owned a 320-acre farm near Gainesville that provided both a home for their champion stallions and a place for the family to spend time together. Perhaps the triumph for which Alec will be best remembered was his battle with cancer. When Alec was diagnosed with inoperable pancreatic cancer in 1993, he told doctors that he could not accept their prognosis; he still had too much to do. Although Alec was told to get his estate in order as he had only a few months left, he beat the odds for 2 incredible years and attributed his success to psychotherapy and a positive mental attitude. He devoted himself to legitimizing alternative treatments and to sharing his amazing experience with others. The University of Miami's new Courtelis Center for Research and Treatment in Psychosocial Oncology furthers Alec's devotion to lending validity to alternative treatments and provides new hope for its patients. A sign at Alec's farm read, ``It's performance that counts.'' This is a motto that Alec abided by throughout his life. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the life of Alec Courtelis.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a man who has brought 15 years of joy to his parishioners at St. Patrick Church in Miami Beach, FL. Unfortunately, his archbishop has decided that his talents are more needed elsewhere. I speak of Father James Paul Murphy, originally of Cork, Ireland. Last year Father Murphy celebrated 25 years in the priesthood, the past 15 of which have been spent at St. Patrick Church. Coincidentally, Father Murphy came to St. Patrick's the same year that I came to Congress. This parish holds a particularly special place in my heart, as I was baptized there. Before coming to St. Patrick Church, Father Murphy was the director of the youth office at the chancellory of the Archdiocese of Miami. Since Father Murphy joined St. Patrick's he has continued his work with the youth in the community and is well liked by the children in school. He has formed a program for the youth in the parish, as well as a child care center. Father Murphy administers to the elderly, the sick, and the needy of our community. He holds luncheons for the elderly on Tuesdays, likes to visit the homebound, holds engagement encounters, visits Mt. Sinai, and the Miami Heart Institute and serves as the chaplain of the Miami Beach Police Department. Father Murphy's parishioners think he is a terrific pastor. He has said the pain his move is causing his parishioners is the hardest part for him and reminds him of the French song Plaisir D'Amour, which he remembers from his childhood in Ireland. ``The joys of love are but a moment long. The pain endures the whole life through.'' St. Patrick's and the town of Miami Beach are losing not only a wonderful pastor but a good friend. Father Murphy will surely be missed for the outstanding contributions he has made to his parish and community. Our Lady of Lakes will count their blessings when they see what a wonderful addition their parish is getting.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, the last speaker, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Levin], on the floor, I have enjoyed working with him in the subcommittee and he and I have had a lot of conversations on and off the floor, in the subcommittee. We all want to do the right thing, and I applaud him for putting forth the fact that the welfare system that we have today is archaic, it is wrong, and it is bad. But I want to point out a couple of things that I do not think the Senators were aware of that wrote the letter he referred to, and that I am not sure the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Levin] is aware of. Under the new baseline, we are spending more in this bill on Aid to Families with Dependent Children than we do under existing law. With the funding level that we have in child care, an area that I have spoken to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Levin] about several times, and I know he is very concerned about, there is an additional billion, which puts us way above, over a billion dollars over the Senate bill, which is the one the four Senators that he referred to voted for. The question of the cuts in SSI. They were only for those children who are not seriously afflicted and it is recognizing that we need to keep full funding for those children who are truly disabled. It is a compassionate bill, a good bill, a good rule. I encourage the House to vote for the rule and for the bill.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson].

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson]. (Mr. EMERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the most distinguished gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. McCrery], a valuable member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham].

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington [Ms. Dunn], a distinguished member of the Committee on ways and Means.

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

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Talent].

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Agriculture. (Mr. ROBERTS 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. Mica]. (Mr. MICA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Franks]. (Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from the State of Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson], a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order that this motion to recommit is outside of the scope of the bill that is immediately before the House.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time. Mr. Speaker, we have come down a very, very long road. Before I get into my closing remarks, I want to recognize a staff person who has done an unbelievable job in bringing this along, Dr. Ron Haskins, of the Committee on Ways and Means, Subcommittee on Human Resources. Without him, all of us know that without good hard-working staff people, such as Dr. Haskins, we would not be able to formulate legislation such as is before us today. Mr. Speaker, I think we also, while we are handing out credit today, we have to give credit to the President of the United States for raising the consciousness of the American people about the corruption of the existing welfare system. For it is he that coined the phrase that we shall change welfare as we know it today. It took, however, this Congress to finally move forward with a bill that all of us today should be able to support. I wish the podium were right in the middle of this floor because this is where it ought to be when we are talking about the future of so many millions of American people who have become welfare dependent. President Roosevelt referred to welfare as a narcotic. It is an addictive narcotic. Approaching welfare reform, as many of us did some 5\1/2\, 6 years ago, never once did we view it as a vindication of the taxpayer. We viewed it as a corrupt system that had sucked people into a way of life from which there was no escape, and we have moved substantially forward. I want to compliment all of the Members on the Democrat side of the aisle for their vote the last time this came forward, because each and every one of you set aside and said, ``I will not support the existing welfare system.'' Each and every one of you today have not, not one person in this Chamber has gotten up to support this system that is now 60 years old and has enslaved so many of our American people. Is there one of us that would want to depend upon a 60-year-old car for transportation? But we are asking the poorest among us to live with a system that is 60 years old. Think back 60 years, think of where the place of the woman was 60 years ago and where she is now. Think how the American psyche has changed, think about where minorities have gone in the protection of the law when the law used to work against them, and now it is working with them. So what has held so many American people back? A welfare system, a welfare system that pays people to stay where they are, not to get married, and not to work. We cannot choose that system. My colleagues, today we have a choice. On the one side, you can vote for the status quo. On the other side, you can come forward with us and reach out your hand, and I will commit to you as long as I am chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Resources we are going to continue to look at welfare reform. We are going to continue to help the poor. We are going to move this country forward, and we are not going to leave anybody behind this time. Vote ``yes'' on this most important bill.

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 include extraneous material on the conference report on the bill, H.R. 4.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Kennedy] that AFDC does not require a continuing resolution.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce, with my good friend and colleague Mr. Canady of Florida, timely legislation to provide trade relief to producers of perishable agricultural products who have been substantially harmed by an increase in imports after the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement [NAFTA]. The Trade Act of 1974 authorizes the President to assist a domestic industry by imposing duties or modifying concessions if it has been determined that an increase in imports has been a substantial cause of or threatens serious injury to the domestic industry. However, domestic industry is currently defined narrowly by the trade act so as not to include the seasonal industries. Consequently, producers of perishable agricultural products who produce their product during a particular growing season are grouped together with all growers of this product during the full calendar year, and therefore these seasonal producers are unable to show the requisite injury needed for an antidumping action. This bill corrects this inequity by expanding the definition of domestic industry to account for the seasonal nature of agricultural products. Specifically, a domestic producer would include a producer that sells all or almost all of the production during the growing season. In addition, during that growing season, demand for the article must not be supplied, to any substantial degree, by other domestic producers. This definition is tailored to provide relief to the seasonal domestic agricultural industry, such as winter tomato producers, who sustained significant injury when they were faced with a significant increase in imports in 1994. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, let us not forget that the balanced budget that we are looking at today is more than just a balanced budget; it is also about its contents. On the question of welfare reform, it is time for a compromise. The President can start by stopping his campaign to demonize the Republican plan. We have bargained in good faith and we have moved dramatically in the administration's direction by putting together a reasonable welfare reform bill that the President can and should sign. We recently sent to the President a lengthy response showing that our negotiations have produced an agreement that is complete or in substantial agreement with 85 percent of the 88 specific objections that the administration raised in October, 85 percent. How many negotiations do we enter into where the other side can win on 85 percent of the issues, and they still are not satisfied? We provide more child care funds and more cash welfare funds than States would get under current law. These are not cuts; these are not even reductions in the rate of spending growth. The are absolute increases in Federal spending above the CBO line, and spending on all of these welfare programs covered in our bill rises over 4 percent each year. Yet, despite our willingness to compromise, the administration continues to claim that is not enough and that we are harming millions of children. That is baloney. This administration has shown no willingness to compromise, to put a credible alternative plan on the table, and the budget we have before us today is simply proof of that fact. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the President if he were here that the welfare reforms in your latest bill do not end welfare as we know it today, and the President knows that. He knows that the American people know that. Mr. President, in the next few days, you will receive a bill that will allow you to fulfill your pledge to end the current failed welfare system. We await you decision, and the American people are watching to see whether you can be counted on to keep your word and change welfare as we know it today.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend from Michigan that one of the previous administrations back in 1985 did indeed borrow from the Social Security trust fund and was most severely criticized by the Democrat Party for having done so. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bachus].

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, in closing I would say to all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle let us not delegate our authority given to us by the Constitution to this administration or to future administrations. Vote no on the motion to recommit and yes on the bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, a motion to recommit simply legitimizes what is going on now. Let me read for my colleagues a provision, and I, as a lawyer, have never read this in the law, anything that is drafted such as this. It says: The Treasury shall continue the investment policy that he has followed since the debt-ceiling crisis began in November of 1995 by continuing to invest Social Security receipts in the Social Security trust fund following his normal procedures. Now can my colleagues imagine trying to unravel that 15-20 years from now, about going back and seeing what one Secretary of the Treasury was doing. It personalizes the existing Treasurer into law. I have never seen that happen before. Then I would say particularly to my friends from Maryland and from Virginia this is something they should look at very, very cautiously. We have continued to see, and these particular Members, as well as the Delegate from the District of Columbia, come to this floor and protect Federal employees. Federal employees should be offended by this motion to recommit because it simply says that the Federal retirement fund now becomes a piggy bank that the Treasurer can dip into as he sees fit. Do not take my word for it. Read page 2 of the bill which says the civil service retirement fund, and it just goes a very short paragraph, and there is no way that these Members, or any of us that are concerned about Federal retirees, that we could possibly vote for this motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bachus].