E. Shaw

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor the 75th Anniversary of Publix supermarkets. Publix was founded by George W. Jenkins in 1930 in Winter Haven, Florida. Since then, Publix has more than 125,000 associates in Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Alabama and Tennessee. With more than 800 stores, it is one of the fastest growing employee-owned Fortune 500 companies. In 1940, George Jenkins mortgaged an orange grove he had acquired during the Depression for a down payment on his dream store--Florida's first supermarket. He built his ``food palace'' of marble, glass and stucco, and equipped it with innovations never seen before in a grocery store. Such innovations included air conditioning, fluorescent lighting, electriceye doors and frozen food cases. People from all over traveled hundreds of miles to partake in the Publix experience. In 1951, to help build and supply the stores, a 125,000-square-foot warehouse and headquarters complex was completed in Lakeland. Five years later, Publix recorded its first million-dollar profit year. George Jenkins' reputation grew along with the business and he was elected president of the Super Market Institute in 1961. In 1970, Publix achieved another high mark, recording nearly $500 million in sales, a figure that would double in four short years. In 1979, Publix had a record-breaking year with 15 new store openings. Publix turned 50 in 1980, and celebrated by kicking off a decade of technological innovation. In keeping with the company's affinity for using technology to make shopping more pleasurable, Publix introduced checkout scanning statewide. Publix marked another milestone in 1991 when the company crossed the state line to open a store in Savannah, Georgia. It was named in the top ten Best Companies to Work for in America in 1993, and is consistently recognized in the grocery business for superior quality and customer service by an American Customer Index survey. The company has received numerous awards during its 75 year history including Diversistar Award for excelling in promoting workplace diversity practices; named by Child magazine as one ofthe Top 10 Family-Friendly Supermarkets; ``Outstanding Business'' award for recycling efforts from Recycle Today, Inc.; and the Governor's Business Diversification Award for Business Expansion. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of Florida's 22nd District, I wish to commend the efforts of the Publix CEO, Charlie Jenkins, Jr. and everyone at Publix for their mission to provide quality food and their continued efforts to offer excellent customer service.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Madam Speaker, reading the resolution, it simply says that there is hereby established a select bipartisan committee to investigate the preparation for and the response to Hurricane Katrina. There is so much we can learn, so many missteps, but so many things that were done right. And I think it is time for us to come together. I have served in this body now 25 years; and in that 25 years, a little over half of it was under a Democrat House and Democrat leadership, Tip O'Neill, Jim Wright, three Speakers in all on the Democrat side. And I can tell you, the ratio of this committee, we would have just rejoiced in getting 9 out of the 20 spots during that period of time. I think it is tremendously fair, and I think the Speaker has been very fair in what he has talked about. Now anyone in this House that would suggest that any Member of this House or any Member of either party would whitewash or push something under the rug that could mean the life and death of the American people or the destruction of property because it is politically expedient, I just cannot imagine that. I cannot imagine that possibly happening. There is going to be good people appointed to this committee, and they are going to be people that really care. And I think after they look at it and after this report comes out, the American people will have faith once again in their Government. You know, criticism has always been made suggesting that Congress cannot have oversight over the laws that we pass ourselves. What do we do every day? We do that in committees every day. We have hearings. I do not care whether it is a Ways and Means Committee, the Appropriations Committee, Transportation Committee, whatever committee we are talking about, we are constantly examining and reexamining the laws that we have passed and the laws that have been passed by previous Congresses. That is our job. That is what we are supposed to do. And for us to suggest or for me to suggest that we need to push this off to some independent body and not do it ourselves does not make a whole lot of sense. And, by the way, one of the recommendations that came out of the independent body from 9/11 was to put FEMA under Homeland Security. Now everybody is clamoring, saying that was a mistake. I think it was a mistake, and I think we need to very closely examine what we are doing. We need to do something else, too. We have appropriated an awful lot of money to be spent down in that area, and we are going to appropriate a lot more. I think the President estimated that it could be $200 billion. And we have to watch and see how that money is being spent. We saw FEMA make some big mistakes in the past down in Miami/Dade County, where they were paying for funerals last year where there was not a hurricane. They were paying for funerals where there was not even a corpse. They were paying for all kinds of things, and that area should have been actually taken out of the disaster relief area when it was passed. So this the committee has a big, big job; and it should be done in the Congress. I do not want an oversight committee, independent of the Congress, not elected people, that are overseeing it and seeing how this money is being spent, $200 billion of American taxpayers' money.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize my good friend, Broward County Administrator Roger Desjarlais who will retire this month following seven and a half years of service to the people and residents of Broward County. In 1998, after more than twenty years of distinguished service in Lee County, Florida, Roger Desjarlais was appointed Broward County Administrator by the Board of County Commissioners. Throughout his tenure, his dynamic leadership style, exemplified by his track record of work with local, State, and Federal officials and business and community leaders, has proven effective throughout his time in Broward County. Mr. Desjarlais has accomplished a great deal during the past seven and a half years: improving key services, providing critical infrastructure improvements in unincorporated areas of Broward County, and implementing multi-million dollar expansion programs for Port Everglades and Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport at Dania Beach. He has managed this and more, expanding programs and levels of service, all while developing a balanced budget with reduced millage rates for the past seven years in a row. Mr. Speaker, Roger Desjarlais' capable and collaborative style has been outstandingly successful and has greatly benefited the people of Broward County. Although he has decided to pursue new opportunities, his work has not gone unnoticed, and I am certain that Roger will remain an active participant in his community, State, and Nation.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to the attention of the body an example that I think is citing a very fine example in my own congressional district. In the city of Palm Beach Gardens, they are putting out feelers in order to hire people out of these shelters, hire people out of the stricken areas, to bring into the city of Palm Beach Gardens, hire them and give them meaningful jobs. This is something that I think we should be looking at all across the country. These poor people in the stricken areas of the hurricane are going to go home to find there are no jobs to go home to. There are going to be business failures, small businesses. People are going to be losing property to mortgages because of the loss of income. So this is something where I think we can bring these stories back to our own hometowns all across this Nation, that there is a huge pool of talent out there which is just going to be idle. They are not going to have jobs, and I think that some recruiting going into this area would be very helpful, and it would certainly be in the great tradition of this country.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the tremendous efforts by my friend and Ways and Means colleague, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Kevin Brady for the successful passage of the Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA). Since his election to the United States House of Representatives, Representative Brady has envisioned the day when the United States would successfully negotiate a free trade agreement with our Central American neighbors. After a number of years and some tense months, that vision has come a reality. American farmers, manufactures, businesses and consumers will now reap the benefits of duty-free access to the growing market of DR- CAFTA. For 20 years, these countries have benefitted from duty-free imports into the United States under the Caribbean Basin Initiative. Today, thanks to the leadership of Representative Brady, the United States will receive this same benefit. Representative Brady has become a fervent advocate of free trade as a member of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade. Kevin has made strengthening trade between the United States and our global trading partners one of his top legislative priorities. As the world continues moving towards globalization, it is imperative that we support trade policy which protects American interests. I am proud to join my friend in this effort. Mr. Speaker, a number of individuals played an important role in the passage of DR-CAFTA. However, my friend, Representative Kevin Brady went above and beyond to secure this historic agreement.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my concerns about the conference report to the Energy Policy Act of 2005. I believe that the passage of the conference report for H.R. 6 is a momentous event. This conference report is a culmination of many years of hard work and negotiating on both sides of the aisle and in both Chambers of Congress. Our country is finally adopting a national energy policy, an action that is long, long overdue. The conference report for H.R. 6 includes numerous important measures to promote the use of clean and renewable fuels and emerging energy technologies, improves the delivery and reliability of electricity transmission, requires energy conservation and mandates efficiency standards. With all of these great provisions in H.R. 6, I am disappointed that the conference report includes a provision to conduct an inventory of all oil and gas resources beneath all waters of the Outer Continental Shelf. I have constantly fought to protect Florida's coast from offshore oil drilling. I have joined my colleagues in the Florida delegation, Republicans and Democrats, in defeating numerous attempts to weaken the drilling moratorium on the OCS. To Floridians, an inventory of oil resources means drilling. To Floridians, there are too many uncertainties of the impact that seismic testing will have on sensitive ecosystems and marine life. To Floridians, anything but a full and permanent moratorium of drilling off our shores means doom. I support identifying alternative domestic sources of energy. In our uncertain world, the United States must look closer to home for its energy needs. However, the shores of Florida are too close to home. Florida is a unique ecological gem in our country and the world, and cannot be tampered with. It is also important to note that Florida's leading industry is tourism. If inventorying would lead to drilling, it would inevitably lead to a downturn in tourism to Florida. While I support the vast majority of H.R. 6, I must stand with my colleagues from Florida in voting against final passage. I remain committed to working with Chairman Barton, Ranking Member Dingell and my Florida colleagues in a bipartisan manner as we move forward, to ensure that the OCS drilling moratorium continues to protect Florida.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me this time. I do want to respond to several items that have been made. I think the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam) just simply pointed out that the motion to recommit can certainly be with instructions to incorporate the amendments that the minority is speaking of. But let us take a look at what this bill does. The gentleman from Massachusetts was pointing out that there was more to this bill than the original bill filed by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English). I might say it, too, that he is absolutely correct because there is a substantial provision in there that was written by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Ways and Means. There was also a provision by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers), the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) dealing with different aspects. So this was a conglomeration of a number of bills brought together under the leadership of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English) and brought directly to the floor. Let us talk about an open rule on a trade bill, something coming out of the Committee on Ways and Means. If we bring a bill like this to the floor, there is going to be a feeding frenzy. There will be more China bashing than we can ever imagine, and that is not a proper way to bring any trade bill to the floor of the House of Representatives. I do not recall any trade bill of this sort that has been brought directly to the House with an open rule so that every Member can throw in everything and every political speech, as we are hearing today. There is another provision that I think we need to really take a close look at. The Democrats are talking about unilateral sanctions being brought against China. That is a violation of the World Trade Organization. And is it not strange that we would be asked to violate the World Trade Organization provisions by unilateral sanctions, which are in violation of the World Trade Organization? Also, we were talking about intellectual property rights. This does require the trade representative to build a case under intellectual property rights. This is all being done under the rule of law. It is all being done properly. It is all being done through the World Trade Organization. This bill addresses many of the problems, if not all of the problems, that we have heard come from the other side of the aisle. But it does it in an orderly manner. It does it in accordance with law, and it does stick to the principles of the World Trade Organization, which is something that we subscribe to. So I would urge all the Members to vote for this rule, vote for the underlying bill. The House is not going to close down. As chairman of the Trade Subcommittee, I am sure we are going to be talking about more things having to do with China, and the fact that the minority party does not get all that it wants out of this bill does not mean that they should trash it or that they should vote against it. This is an incremental process.

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

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would say to the gentleman that we do not waive any of those rights in the bill that is before the House today.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3045.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3283.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English) for yielding me this time, and I congratulate him on his leadership for bringing this bill to the floor. My friend from Michigan who just left the well has been critical of this bill regarding to intellectual property rights. Well, sometimes we should go to the bill and read the bill. And I am going to read it. It says, ``Dispute settlement proceedings in World Trade Organization. If the President determines that the People's Republic of China has not met each of the obligations described in A through N, paragraph one,'' and that is the provision in there that talks about the trade obligations. It then goes on to say, ``or taken steps that result in significant improvements or protection of intellectual property rights in accordance with its trade obligations, then the President shall assign such resources as necessary to collect such evidence of trade agreement violations for use in dispute settlement agreements against China in the World Trade Organization.'' In other words, it says the President will proceed in accordance with the law through the World Trade Organization to obtain sanctions. That is what the World Trade Organization is about. It is not about unilateral sanctions. It is simply about that. This bill has got a lot of teeth in it, and for anyone to get to the well and say, hey, this does not have teeth in it really is misstating what this bill actually does. It takes us a long way down the road in solving some of the problems with China. This is not the end of the legislative process as it relates to China. I think every Member of this Congress should know that. This does not cut off further debate on China. This does not cut off or set aside the possibility of new legislation dealing with the problems of China. We are all concerned about the tremendous increase in the deficit as it goes from China, but most of that deficit, if not all of it, is actually taking trade out of Japan and taking it out of Korea, South Korea. When you look at the trade deficit as it is to that part of the world, it is pretty flat. But China's part is increasing, and the other countries' are decreasing. That is concern for alarm. And I am concerned about some of the trade practices of China which are very sloppy and, quite frankly, not dealing entirely honestly with the trading partners. So I would ask that Members put aside the politics and all the rhetoric, read the bill. If you like what is in the bill, it moves us further down the road. If you do not think we have gone far enough, that does not mean that you vote no on this particular bill. If you are interested in going forward with legislation that will control the violation of law committed by China, vote yes.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I have heard for so long we keep talking about NAFTA as if it was somewhat of a disaster. But I think there are some statistics that have to be really examined when we are talking about NAFTA. Sure, there have been some jobs lost in this country because of NAFTA. There have also been some jobs created. In fact, there are many more jobs created since NAFTA than there are jobs that went overseas. Since NAFTA was formed in 1994, U.S. exports of manufacturing goods to Canada and Mexico have grown 55 percent faster than shipments to the rest of the world. And when you look down and see what has happened in Chile, actually our exports have vastly outpaced our imports from Chile. Now, let U.S. talk about what we are trying to do here. We are just trying to have fair trade. Right now, the Central American countries have a preference where their goods come into this country without paying any meaningful tariffs, and there are very few areas where they are restricted. We simply now say give U.S. that privilege in Central America, and Central America says, yes, we will do that, because they know that that is good for their future. And we have another thing to do think about. What about the security interests there? I was here and the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) when we first came in 1981 during the Reagan administration. We had huge security problems in Central America. Communism was on the rise; Castro was having all kinds of influence in that part of the world. Since then, wonderful things have happened. These communist countries have collapsed. They have embraced democracy. They have embraced capitalism. And they are looking where? They are looking north to the United States. There is where they find their future. There is where their future is. Let us not cut them short. This is a good, good bill. It is well balanced. It is good for American business. It is good for American farmers. It is good for American laborers. Let us get together and pass this bill.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I would remind the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) who has voted for previous trade agreements that this agreement has the strongest labor provision of any of the agreements that the gentleman has voted for, and that these countries, all of these countries adhere to international labor standards. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), a distinguished Democratic Member of the House of Representatives.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson), a very respected Democratic member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar).

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to point out that the last couple of speakers here, including the gentleman who just left the well, voted for trade preferences for these countries with much weaker labor standards in 1983. It passed this House by 392 to 18. It passed in 1990 by a voice vote. And then with the labor standards put in there, more labor standards, it was 309 to 110. We have strengthened the labor standards. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton). (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lewis), a member of the House Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means who has been very active in putting together this agreement.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I guess that challenge would go in both directions. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola).

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I will supply to the gentleman who just left the well the case number of the case which settles this. This is certainly within the bounds of the Constitution. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).