Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 167. I commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) for introducing the House counterpart of this legislation, and I commend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) for their continued diligence in bringing this legislation to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, included in Title II of this legislation is the Family Movie Act of 2005. This title clarifies the Copyright Act so families, in the privacy of their homes, can use technology that allows them to skip or mute objectionable content in legally purchased or rented DVDs. Parents should have the right to watch any movie they want and to skip over or mute any content they find objectionable. This legislation will allow parents to have the final say in what their children watch in the privacy of their homes, and parents should have the option to protect their children from the sex, violence, profanity and other objectionable material found in movies that are produced in Hollywood these days.

This legislation allows them to do so by clarifying the exemption in the copyright infringement law allowing people to skip, mute or avoid scenes on DVDs. This legislation does not allow for the modifying of the underlying content of the movie, it merely allows fast forwarding or muting portions of the movie or sound track.

Thanks to this legislation, parents can control the content their children view without having to hold a finger on the remote control and anticipate scenes they might find objectionable.

Mr. Speaker, technology that helps parents accomplish this goal should be applauded. S. 167 will allow for technology innovation to flourish without having to face continued legal challenges. This bill is an ideal solution that can be used by families in the home, and does not require limits to be placed on content the studios develop.

I support this legislation. I urge the support of my colleagues.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Senate bill 256 and urge its adoption by the House.

Whether or not we have a cost of $400 per household or some other cost, I think it is clear to all Americans that we pay a cost if we have excessive bankruptcies in America. What we are looking for here is workable markets where consumers have the opportunity to borrow money at the lowest cost. Hopefully, they are not above 18 percent; certainly not at 75 percent. The market does a remarkable job for that purpose.

For more than 7 years now, almost as long as I have been in Congress, we have struggled with the rising tide of bankruptcy abuse which threatens the delicate balance in this country between creditors and debtors. As this reform measure has developed, slowly, inexorably, we have dealt with each issue: framing, debating, considering, and ultimately resolving each controversy. Progressive Congresses have moved toward ultimate resolution, until finally today the House has been presented with a bill that it can send directly to the President for signature.

As chairman of the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, I take considerable satisfaction that, through collective effort, we would be able to achieve what many said would never happen. We have crafted fair and balanced legislation dealing in a straightforward manner with a problem that has vexed the Nation for the past decade and threatens economic growth and stability. By the way, the Bankruptcy Act has not been amended for 25 years in a serious way.

The American people will truly be well served by this effort. This bill is a rare achievement of reducing disparity in the bankruptcy system. It establishes more uniform and predictable standards. It strengthens the integrity of the bankruptcy process. It deals with the continuing wave of bankruptcy filings and abuse of State homestead exemptions. It will reinforce the public perception that the system is fair for all participants. It improves the administration of the bankruptcy process. And, finally, it restores a measure of personal responsibility to the bankruptcy system that is spiraling out of control.

Mr. Speaker, my constituents need this legislation, and America needs this legislation, and I urge support today for S. 256.

I would also note that the need for additional bankruptcy judgeships may need to be considered to reflect the numbers submitted by the Judicial Conference's most recent report. Additional judgeships are sorely needed in a number of districts across the country, including my State of Utah. I was heartened by the assurance of the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary during the markup of Senate 256 that this matter will be considered later this year. In that regard, I would like to thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) who has worked tirelessly on the issue of expanding the number of bankruptcy judges we have to meet this need.

Mr. Speaker, at this point I will place additional information on the bill in the Record.

During the course of the Senate Judiciary Committee's consideration of S. 256, a provision was added to deal with excessive retention bonuses, severance payments and other forms of inducements paid by a debtor to retain key personnel or otherwise induce a debtor's management to remain with the debtor.

This provision addresses serious conserns and I support the intent of its drafters. Nevertheless, this provision should not be construed to invalidate all key employee retention programs for companies that may someday wind up in Chapter 11. It is very important that a Chapter 11 debtor be able to retain management that is dedicated to maintaining the company's value for the benefit of its creditors, investors, employees, and other stakeholders. All too often, companies that fail to reorganize successfully are converted to Chapter 7 for liquidation, where creditors receive pennies on the dollar and employees face job dislocation.

Where appropriate, key employee retention programs may be necessary to bring a company in financial distress successfully through the Chapter 11 process. Accordingly, section 331 of S. 256 should not be applied to invalidate such programs where there is no evidence of insider negligence, mismanagement, or fraudulent conduct contributed to a company's insolvency--in whole or in part.

Given the possibility that the intent of the Congress with respect to this provision and the interpretation of Section 331's text may not be consistent, legislation clarifying language may be necessary. If so, I will work with my colleagues in the House and Senate to address any such inconsistencies.

I ask that a letter from the Association of Insolvency and Restructuring Advisors be printed at this point in the Record.

Association of Insolvency,

and Restructuring Advisors,

Medford, OR, March 1, 2005.

Senator Arlen Specter,

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: The undersigned are financial and legal

professionals who serve as the Board of Directors of the

Association of Insolvency and Restructuring Advisors (AIRA).

As board members we work to further the AIRA's goal of

increasing industry awareness of the organization as an

important educational and technical resource for

professionals in business turnaround, restructuring, and

bankruptcy practice, and of the Certified Insolvency and

Restructuring Advisor (CIRA) designation as an assurance of

expertise in this area.

We write to make you aware of serious concerns we have

regarding a provision contained in S. 256, the ``Bankruptcy

Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005.'' The

provision in question effectively prohibits the use of key

employee retention plans in Chapter 11 reorganizations. It

was added during the Judiciary Committee mark-up of the bill

and elicited little attention at the time. However, we

believe this provision will cause considerable harm to a

number of companies that will become subject to bankruptcy

proceedings, and, most importantly, to their employees,

customers, and creditors.

When a company is operating in Chapter 11, a primary

responsibility of management is to maintain and grow the

company's value for the benefit of all of its stakeholders. A

company that is well-managed through its restructuring

benefits its creditors, employees, retirees, unions and the

local communities of which the company is a part. Companies

that fail to successfully reorganize in Chapter 11 are

liquidated. Creditors receive pennies on the dollar and

employees see their jobs and retirement savings destroyed.

When companies enter Chapter 11, it is critical that they

attract and retain top management talent. But Chapter 11 is

also the most difficult time to attract and retain such

talent. Managers of Chapter 11 companies are faced with

intense scrutiny, stress, insecurity, and an enormously

complex process. Compensation and incentive tools used by

non-bankrupt companies such as equity compensation programs

are not available to assist with attracting and retaining the

type of management talent necessary to bring the company

successfully through the Chapter 11 process--this is because

the pre-petition equity is almost always without value. Key

employee retention plans (``KERPs'') have become common

practice since the early 1990's and have been viewed by

courts, debtors, and creditors alike as an important and

useful way to help reorganization by retaining key employees.

Bankruptcy courts have agreed with this reasoning, and many

judges have used their judicial discretion to approve KERPs.

For a court to approve a KERP under existing law, however, a

debtor must use proper business judgment in formulating the

program, and the court must find the program to be reasonable

and fair. Creditors have the right to object to proposed

KERPs, and judges are presented with a full evidentiary

record upon which to make a determination. If a KERP is

not appropriate or if it is not in the best interest of

the company's creditors, the judge can refuse to approve

it.

In the last few years, there has been a trend, with which

we agree, towards stricter judicial scrutiny of proposed

KERPs by bankruptcy judges. Such a trend seems appropriate in

the wake of numerous high profile bankruptcy filings where

management's misconduct or mismanagement has led to the

Chapter 11 filing. Judges have discretion to deny KERPs in

these circumstances, and they do so when the facts and

circumstances warrant.

Unfortunately, S. 256 as reported by the Senate Judiciary

Committee includes an amendment authored by Senator Edward M.

Kennedy (the Kennedy amendment) that places significant

limits on retention bonuses and severance payments to

employees of companies in Chapter 11. It would prohibit a

bankruptcy judge from approving retention bonuses in every

Chapter 11 case unless he or she finds that the company in

question has proven that the employee has a bona fide job

offer at the same or greater rate of compensation; was

prepared to accept the job offer; and the services of that

employee are ``essential to the survival of the business.''

The amendment also places significant caps on the amount of

such bonus and payments.

The Kennedy amendment appears to be motivated by a desire

to combat KERPs in Chapter 11 cases where employee-related

fraud substantially contributed to the bankruptcy of the

company. Yet, by painting with such a broad brush, the

Kennedy amendment will, if enacted, effectively eliminate all

companies' ability to ever receive court approval for a KERP.

Federal bankruptcy judges would have little or no discretion

to approve KERPs. In turn, bankrupt companies would have less

flexibility in trying to retain or attract necessary

employees. This result will cause considerable harm to

companies in bankruptcy, their employees, and their

creditors.

It is apparent that the Kennedy amendment is designed to

prevent abuses of the system, where creditors', employees'

and retirees' monies are unnecessarily expended for the

enrichment of management. Whether there currently is or is

not sufficient judicial scrutiny of KERPs is a valid

question, insofar as the overall bankruptcy system allows

debtors a fair amount of flexibility in exercising reasonable

judgment--but there must be an approach better than

handcuffing the judiciary and stakeholders in bankruptcy

cases by essentially precluding all use KERPs. The proper use

of KERPs requires an analysis of all facts and circumstances

of the case, and not what is essentially a blanket

proscription of these tools.

Senator Kennedy has advanced an important public policy

discussion with his amendment. Managers who have had

responsibility for driving a company into bankruptcy should

not be paid a bonus to remain. Similarly, if the retention of

an employee would not enhance a company's value for its

stakeholders, they should not be paid a bonus to stay.

Current law provides bankruptcy judges with the discretion

necessary to deny a KERP in such circumstances and bankruptcy

judges do deny KERP payments in these circumstances. Still,

if the Congress wishes to improve the operation of current

law while still safeguarding the ability of the courts to

approve legitimate KERPs, we would welcome a discussion on

how best to achieve that end. Unfortunately, S. 256, as

reported by the Committee, goes too far and should be amended

so as not to unnecessarily limit the bankruptcy court's

ability to determine what is in the best interest of each

individual bankruptcy estate.

Mr. Chairman, we thank you for considering our views on

this important matter. We would be pleased to address any

questions you or other members of the Committee on the

Judiciary may have.

Sincerely,

The members of the board and management of the Association

of Insolvency and Restructuring Advisors.

Soneet R. Kapila, CIRA, Kapila & Company; President, AIRA.

James M. Lukenda, CIRA, Huron Consulting Group; Chairman,

Mr. Speaker, to understand the need for S. 5, we need to understand the game the class action lawyers play here and how they go about abusing the court systems. I call it Class Action Monopoly. Here is how it works. They start at Go. The first thing they do is come up with an idea for a lawsuit. And then they find a named plaintiff. It does not have to be someone who is actually injured in the process. All the lawyer really needs is an idea for a lawsuit and potential defendants who have deep pockets.

Next they find a person who is the named plaintiff. That named plaintiff is a citizen of the same State as one of the defendants and that puts them in the State court, which is where they want to be. Sometimes they have to promise to pay off that named plaintiff at this point, but that is all part of the game.

Next the lawyers level their allegations, both in court and in the media. Remember, they do not have to have proof for their allegations. They just need a forum in which to make the allegations. Now the real fun begins after you have made the allegations. They are in State court with the named plaintiffs and their allegations, and it is time to get out of rule 23 free.

Rule 23 is the rule that would apply in Federal courts that defines when a class action can be certified consistent with fundamental fairness and due process considerations. But in this game, there is no fairness. There is no due process. So they easily convince their magnet State to certify that they have a class and at the same time they file copycat lawsuits in State courts all over the country. These are the same class actions asserting the same claims on behalf of the same people. These copycat lawsuits clog the State courts.

At this point in the game, the lawyers start making the money. Let us see where the money goes.

In the Columbia House record case, the lawyers took home $5 million and the plaintiffs got a coupon for discounts on future purchases of records.

In the Blockbuster case, the lawyers walked away with $9.25 million, and the plaintiffs again got a coupon for $1 off their next video rental, coupons that the defendant probably would have issued anyway.

In the Bank of Boston case, the lawyers settled the case and took home $8.5 million. And the customers had money deducted from their mortgage accounts to pay off the lawyers. So in the end, a State court approved these cases, and all of the consumers in the lawsuit lost money.

People may be wondering what happens to them in this game. We already know that if one is a consumer, in the consumer class, they will be lucky if they get a dollar-off coupon. If the business one works for gets sued in one of the class actions, their employer is going to take a major hit and maybe even lay them off. It is that clear in some of these cases, the basic result is that the lawyers will get lots of money, but consumers will pay because health care and car insurance premiums will go through the roof. And when the game comes to an end, they are left with no money and the lawyers are at ``go'' and they get to start the process all over again.

It is fundamentally important that we resolve this problem and help America move forward. I urge support of S. 5.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule on H.R. 418.

Our Nation's immigration policy has been of top concern in recent years, and for good reason. With between eight and twelve million illegal aliens in the United States, it is obviously a problem out of control.

We need to increase border security and fix our immigration laws. We need a system that will encourage well-intentioned, contributing aliens out of the shadows and allow them to pay a reasonable penalty so they can come into compliance with the law.

Americans are rightly concerned about the security and the integrity of the Nation's borders because the system is broken. Some are concerned about the possibility of terrorists crossing our borders and coming into our cities.

But we cannot effectively fight terrorism if we fail to make the distinction between them and busboys and housekeepers.

From 1990 to 2000, the number of U.S. Border Patrol agents nearly tripled, but illegal immigration increased by as much as 5.5 million.

Increasing enforcement resources to keep out willing immigrant workers, as we did throughout the 1990s, has not worked. It has failed, and we need enforcement to be much more narrowly focused on criminals and potential terrorists.

Today, we are considering H.R. 418. This legislation begins the debate on the enforcement aspects of immigration and addresses the narrow issue of driver license security.

I have reservations about the gradual move toward what could become a National ID card, but this legislation begins to address issues necessary to focus efforts in enforcement.

Mr. Speaker, I intend to vote in favor of H.R. 418, but while doing so, I suggest that enforcement, border security and immigration reform must be worked on together.

In fact, fixing the broken system requires a broader strategy that includes both enforcement and the creation of adequate legal channels for immigration that serve the Nation's interests.

By creating legal channels for those looking for a better life and looking to fill jobs that Americans will not fill, we enhance our enforcement efforts. The responsible authorities can focus their resources first on the worst actors.

Our immigration laws and policies must reflect the realities we face today. Our economy demands workers, but our national security demands that we identify those lurking in the shadows.

Enhanced enforcement must be the top priority for immigration policy.

The American people are not anti-immigrant. We are concerned about the lack of coherence in our immigration policy and enforcement.

As part of today's debate, we must realize that the Congress needs to address the other issues with immigration reform now.

Broader immigration reform has been outlined by President Bush. I commend him for his act of leadership.

He has outlined the solution and now Congress must act quickly in crafting legislation. This bill is our first step in a long journey to restore public confidence in an open, welcoming immigration code.

Let Us Give Thanks to Our Immigrants

[From the Wall Street Journal, Nov. 24, 2004]

(By Rupert Murdoch)

When B.C. Forbes sailed for America from Scotland in 1904,

he was following a course well worn by generations of Scots.

I know how the founder of Forbes magazine must have felt.

The Murdochs originally hail from the same part of Scotland.

Today, we are part of the most recent wave of immigrants

attracted by the bright beacon of American liberty.

These days, it's not always easy to talk about the benefits

of immigration. Especially since 9/11, many Americans worry

about borders and security. These are legitimate concerns.

But surely a nation as great as America has the wit and

resources to distinguish between those who come here to

destroy the American Dream--and the many millions more who

come to live it.

The evidence of the contributions these immigrants make to

our society is all around us--especially in the critical area

of education. Adam Smith, another Scotsman, knew that without

a decent system of education, a modem capitalist society was

committing suicide. Well, our modern public school systems

simply are not producing the talent the American economy

needs to compete in the future. And it often seems that it is

our immigrants who are holding the whole thing up.

In a study on high school students released this past

summer, the National Foundation for American Policy found 60

percent of the top science students, and 65 percent of the

top math students, are children of immigrants. The same study

found that seven of the top award winners at the 2004 Intel

Science Talent Search were immigrants or children of

immigrants. This correlates with other findings that more

than half of engineers--and 45 percent of math and computer

scientists--with Ph.D.s now working in the U.S. are foreign

born.

It's not just the statistics. You see it at our most elite

college and university campuses, where Asian immigrants or

their children are disproportionately represented. And a

recent study of 28 prestigious American universities by

researchers from Princeton and the University of Pennsylvania

found something startling: that 41 percent of the black

students attending these schools described themselves as

either immigrants or children of immigrants.

The point is that by almost any measure of educational

excellence you choose, if you're in America you're going to

find immigrants or their children at the top. I don't just

mean engineers and scientists and technicians. In my book,

anyone who comes here and gives an honest day's work for an

honest day's pay is not only putting himself closer to the

American Dream, he's helping the rest of us get there too.

As Ronald Reagan said at the Statue of Liberty, ``While we

applaud those immigrants who stand out, whose contributions

are easily discerned, we know that America's heroes are also

those whose names are remembered by only a few.''

Let me share some of these names with you.

Start with Eddie Chin, an ethnic Chinese Marine who was

born a week after his family fled Burma. You've all seen Cpl.

Chin. Because when Baghdad fell, he was the Marine we all

watched shimmy up the statue of Saddam Hussein to attach the

cable that would pull it down.

Or Lance Cpl. Ahmad Ibrahim. His family came to the U.S.

from Syria when the first Gulf War broke out. Now Cpl.

Ibrahim hopes to be deployed to Iraq--also as a Marine--to

put his Arabic language skills in the service of Corps and

Country.

Or what about Cpl. Jose Gutierrez, who was raised in

Guatemala and came to America as a boy--illegally! Cpl.

Gutierrez was one of the first Marines killed in action in

Iraq. As his family told reporters, this young immigrant

enlisted with the Marine Corps because he wanted to ``give

back'' to America.

So here we have it--Asian Marines, Arab Marines, Latino

Marines--all united in the mission of protecting the rest of

us. Isn't this what Reagan meant when he said that the bond

that ties our immigrants together--what makes us a nation

instead of a collection of individuals--is ``an abiding love

of liberty''? So the next time you hear people whining about

what a ``drain'' on America our immigrants are, it might be

worth asking if they consider these Marines a drain.

Maybe this is more clear to businessmen because of what we

see every day. My company, News Corporation, is a

multinational company based in America. Our diversity is

based on talent, cooperation and ability.

Frankly it doesn't bother me in the least that millions of

people are attracted to our shores. What we should worry

about is the day they no longer find these shores attractive.

In an era when too many of our pundits declare that the

American Dream is a fraud, it is America's immigrants who

remind us--by dint of their success--that the Dream is alive,

and well within reach of anyone willing to work for it.

We are fortunate to have a president who understands that.

Only a few days ago, the White House indicated that it

intended to revive an immigration reform which the president

had first offered before 9/11 and tried to revive back in

January.

Politically speaking, a guest-worker plan is no easy thing.

But as President Bush realizes, we'll never fix the problem

of illegal immigration simply by throwing up walls and trying

to make all of us police them. We've tried that for a decade

or so now, and it's been a flop. What we need to do first is

to make it easier for those who seek honest work to do so

without having to disobey our laws. Fundamentally that means

recognizing that an economy as powerful as ours is always

going to have a demand for more workers.

Such a policy would benefit us all: It would help those who

want nothing more than to work legally move out of the

shadows. It would help our security forces stop wasting

resources now spent on hunting down Mexican waitresses and

start devoting them to tracking the terrorists who really

threaten us. It would help the economy by providing America

with the labor and talent it needs.

Given the tremendous pressures on President Bush and the

considerable opposition from within his own ranks, the

politically expedient thing for him to do would be to drop

it. But he hasn't, and I for one am encouraged by his refusal

to give in.

The immigrant editor B.C. Forbes spent much of the 20th

century championing the glories of American opportunity. We

who have arrived more recently likewise will never forget our

debt we owe to this land--and the obligation to keep that

same opportunity alive in the 21st.

Mr. Murdoch is chairman and chief executive of News

Corporation. This is adapted from a speech he gave last

Thursday, in acceptance of the 2004 B.C. Forbes Award.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit a statement for the Record from the Americans for Tax Reform.

February 9, 2005.

Our nation's immigration and border control policies cry

out for reform. While our best border control officers should

be preventing the next terrorist incursion into our country,

they are instead hunting down willing workers. The attacks of

September 11th called for new and updated thinking in all

areas of federal law enforcement, and immigration reform has

been a glaring omission.

America's immigration system must be reformed in a

responsible, welcoming, adult manner along the lines laid out

by President Bush. Willing workers should be matched with

willing employers, citizenship and residency applications

must be streamlined, and the focus must shift to protecting

the nation from terrorists.

Border security has been increased since 9/11, and should

continue to be so. The latest technology must be used to make

sure America's border is free of terrorist incursions. In

order to let the border guard do their job of defending

America, the President supports giving foreign laborers guest

worker cards, ``to match willing workers with willing

employers.''

President Bush is opposed to amnesty for illegal

immigrants. He also does not want to give foreigners in the

guest worker program any advantage over those who are trying

to become citizens through normal, due process channels.

Congress should support President Bush's common-sense plan

to reform and strengthen America's broken immigration system

even as border security is addressed today in the House of

Representatives.

Grover Norquist,

President.

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to commend the House and Senate for passing the 3 year extension on the moratorium for Internet taxes and the President for signing the bill last Friday. I am pleased that we were able to extend the moratorium, I agree with the gentleman from Wisconsin, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, that the moratorium should be made permanent. I look forward to working with him and others next year to achieve this very important goal.

Second, for clarification purposes on the grandfather of states that tax Internet access, I wish to offer an explanation distinguishing the difference between the pre-October 1998 and pre-November 2003 dates as found in Section 1104.

While both sections use the term ``Internet access,'' Section 1104(a), the provision for pre-October 1998 taxes, applies only to the states that were lawfully taxing Internet access before the original enactment of the Internet Tax Freedom Act in 1998. The definition of ``Internet access'' that applies to the Section 1104(a) grandfather clause is the definition as set forth in the 1998 Internet Tax Freedom Act, as the amended definition does not take effect until November 1, 2003. Those states that were grandfathered under the Internet Tax Freedom Act from 1998 to 2003 will continue to be grandfathered under Section 1104(a).

Section 1104(b), the provision for pre-November 2003 taxes, applies only to those states that were taxing telecommunication services purchased, used, or sold by an Internet access provider to provide Internet access,

such as Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) access technology, if they were doing it lawfully prior to November 1, 2003. The amended definition of ``Internet access'' in the Internet Tax Freedom Act is effective November 1, 2003 and applies to section 1104(b). Section 1104(b) expires November 1, 2005 in order to eliminate any ``tax on Internet access'' (as defined in Section 1104(10)) regarding telecommunications services purchased, used or sold by an Internet access provider for the purpose of providing Internet access.

Finally, in making the Internet Tax Freedom Act technology neutral, this law now protects consumers from taxes on all Internet access technologies, including dial-up, DSL, cable modem, satellite and wireless. A consumer may even purchase Internet access from two Internet access providers without the threat of taxes. He may use one service to browse the Internet and the other service primarily for e- mail and content services. Both Internet access services are protected from state and local taxation under this law. This law is a significant accomplishment on behalf of all American consumers and maximizes consumer choice and access.

Mr. Speaker, I am today introducing legislation to clarify Public Law 104-95, adopted by the Congress in 1995, prohibiting States from taxing the retirement income of nonresidents. That law was enacted in response to actions of some States which were aggressively seeking to tax nonresidents on retirement income from past employment in that state. The Congress felt that State taxation of nonresidents' retirement income was unfair and imposed an unreasonable burden on nonresident retirees.

The law defines ``retirement income'' as any income from specified types of qualified pension plans or from a nonqualified deferred compensation plan that meets certain payment requirements. Nonqualified deferred compensation plans are defined by reference to section 3121(v)(2)(C) of the Internal Revenue Code (the ``Code'') which relates to employment taxes. Specifically, any income of an individual who is not a resident of the taxing State from any plan, program, or arrangement described in section 3121(v)(2)(C) is exempt from that State's income tax, provided the income received from such plan is part of a series of substantially equal periodic payments made--no less frequently than annually--over the life expectancy of the recipient, or for a period of not less than 10 years.

I think the intent of the law is clear, but I am aware that a question could arise regarding state taxation of nonqualified retirement benefits paid by a partnership to its retired nonresident partners. Specifically, the concern is that the reference to section 3121(v)(2)(C) of the Code could be construed to limit the exemption to payments made only to retired employees--i.e. those individuals subjected to FICA tax--since that provision is written in the context of employment taxation. Under this view, nonqualified retirement benefits paid by a partnership to its retired nonresident partners would not be exempt from nonresident state income taxation because there is no specific reference to self-employed individuals in the Public Law 104-95, section 3121(v)(2)(C) of the Code, or subsequently issued Treasury Regulations for that section.

The bill makes it clear that section 3121(v)(2)(C) was meant to define nonqualified deferred compensation income, irrespective of whether the recipient was subject to FICA tax, by specifically including self-employed plans or arrangements. The rationale for applying the statute's exemption for employee retirement income applies equally to retirement income of an independent contractor or partner. Given the fact that the bill is intended to clarify what has been the intent of the bill all along, it applies as of the effective date of Public Law 104-95, i.e., to amounts received after December 31, 1995.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3982.

Mr. Speaker, due to pressing family matters, I was unable to be present on the floor while this bill was being considered. I want to go on record today strongly supporting this bill and want to thank the house for unanimously supporting this legislation.

H.R. 3982 directs the Secretary of Interior to convey certain land held in trust for the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah to the City of Richfield, Utah. This legislation is a win-win for all involved. The bill has three major sections. First the Paiute Indian Tribe would sell a three-acre parcel to the City of Richfield. The Paiute Tribe has owned this land since 1974 and it has not been utilized by the Paiute Tribe for more then 20 years. This parcel will be used by the City to expand their municipal airport.

Second, the Paiute Tribe will transfer two parcels of an acre or less to the Kanosh Band. These two parcels are surrounded by 279 acres of land either owned by the Kanosh Bank or held by the United States in trust for the Kanosh Band. The sole use of one of the land parcels has been the Kanosh Band Community Center. The other parcel was originally intended to be taken by the United States in trust for the Kanosh Band of Paiute Indians in 1981, however, an administrative error mistakenly placed this land parcel in trust for the Paiute Tribe. The Kanosh Band has requested that this error be corrected in 1983, 1984 and 2002.

Finally, the Paiute Tribe would transfer a one-acre parcel that is held in trust by the United States for the Paiute Tribe to the Shivwits Band of Paiute Indians. This one-acre parcel is located at the Shivwits Indian Village, surrounded by several thousand acres of land held by the United States in trust for the Shivwits Band. The sole use of this land parcel for more then 20 years has been the Shivwits Band Community Center.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you and my other colleagues for supporting this important piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3391.

Mr. Speaker, due to pressing family matters, I was unable to be present on the floor while this bill was being considered. I want to go on record strongly supporting this bill and want to thank the House for unanimously supporting this legislation.

H.R. 3391 authorizes the title transfer of certain features of the Provo River Project--including the Provo Reservoir Canal, as well as the Salt Lake Aqueduct and certain land in Pleasant Grove, Utah, from the Bureau of Reclamation to non-federal ownership.

For the past 60 years the Provo River Water Users Association has operated the Provo Reservoir Canal, also known as the Murdock Canal. As long as the title remains in the name of the federal government, the water users association and local communities who use the water are unable to obtain the tax-exempt financing necessary to properly improve and manage the canal. Passage of this title transfer will now allow that to happen.

There are additional benefits to this legislation. For example, significant water efficiencies will result from title transfer. Approximately 8 percent of the water is lost each year to evaporation and seepage since the canal is not enclosed. Transferring ownership will allow it to be enclosed. There are environmental benefits as well--for instance, some of the saved water will be made available to meet the needs of the endangered June sucker. Further, covering the canal will also allow for the development of recreational trails that can be used for hiking and cycling.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you and my other colleagues for supporting this important piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 2895) to authorize the Gateway Arch in St. Louis, Missouri, to be illuminated by pink lights in honor of breast cancer awareness month, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Resources be discharged from further consideration of the Senate bill (S. 524) to expand the boundaries of the Fort Donelson National Battlefield to authorize the acquisition and interpretation of lands associated with the campaign that resulted in the capture of the fort in 1862, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2714) to reauthorize the State Justice Institute, with a Senate amendment thereto and concur in the Senate amendment.

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. 2714.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 2883) to amend the International Child Abduction Remedies Act to limit the tort liability of private entities or organizations that carry out responsibilities of the United States Central Authority under that Act, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

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 S. 2883.